Me: Bezemer’s accounting perspective is insightful but like Steve Keen’s recognition of the importance of accounting is almost a century late and still not basic enough as C. H. Douglas’s cost accounting analysis of the flow of funds made him the first inherent disequilibrium theorist.
Virtually all economic historians ignore Douglas despite this fact and despite his Social Credit theory being a world wide movement between the first and second world wars which the reforms of Keynesianism emerged as the fall back position of Finance against the nascent awareness (even amongst social crediters) of Social Credit’s new paradigm of monetary grace as in gifting with its policies of a universal dividend and a compensated retail discount…which also predated by almost one hundred years the emerging popularity of UBI/QE for the individual.
My Wisdomics-Gracenomics is the new paradigm accomplishing theory that arises out of my economic heterodox education by Keen and Michael Hudson and my extensions and innovations of Douglas’s dual policies that in turn arose out of my study of the signatures of imminent and accomplished historic paradigm changes, my philosophical study and eclectic practice of the world’s major wisdom traditions and their reflective relevance to economics, virtually all of humanity’s systems and finally our species conscious evolution itself.
Grace after all is not only the concept behind the new monetary, economic and financial paradigm, it is also the guiding concept behind every historical paradigm change, the most scientifically accurate and insightful description of the physical-temporal universe and with its formulaic description of an integrated duality within an integrative trinity-unity-oneness-process the most basic description of consciousness as well…a la:
[(Space x Time) <–> Self Awareness ]
YS: When one is taking about economics, you are talking about politics. Your paradigm is a social reform, or a plan to change economic institutions. Paradigm change we need is the one in economics. It is an epistemic question. It has no direct relation to social or economic reforms. Please do not confuse two different paradigms.
Me: Yoshi, Not correct. It is clearly an economic, monetary and financial paradigm change by virtue of it being in conceptual opposition to the current paradigm and also policy wise an inversion/transformation of current recognized realities in those fields. Those are signatures, requirements and definitions for paradigm changes.
And yes, it is also an integrative epistemic/natural philosophical breakthrough as well. In fact it (Gracientialism and the formulaic concept of The Cosmic Code stated as: An integrated duality within an integrative trinity-unity-oneness-process) is a TOE (theory of everything) and its conceptual reflectivities with the scientific method, quantum physics and the world’s major wisdom traditions logically align with each other.
I don’t shrink from that or from debate about it in forums other than ones devoted to economics like this one.
DT: Yoshinori, you may be right about Craig confusing institutions with paradigms, but if you think paradigm change is an epistemic question, that shows you haven’t begun to understand the Tony Lawson and critical realism you so like to criticise. The question is an ONTOLOGICAL one: what is economics? What does economics DO, and what is the system now being labelled ‘economics’ actually doing?
Me: Paradigms/paradigm changes are the single concept pattern creating occurrences that transform both institutions and people’s understandings of the world. There’s no confusion on my part between a paradigm and an institution.
Dave, However, your identification of ontology as the branch of philosophy necessary to be applied to economics in order to truly understand and humanely craft and apply its policies is correct. There’s human ontology (nature of beingness) and temporal universe ontology, and when the two are “in synch” they reflect the double headed nature of all three of self/awareness, the inductive/deductive integration that is the mental discipline of Wisdom and the integrated dual nature of a paradigm (a single concept that defines, describes and creates an entirely new pattern).
RK: I would say that in this situation, theoretical paradigm shifts, even full scale intellectual revolution — though essential parts of the picture — shouldn’t be the main thrust. The wealthy elite in the driver’s seat here are swayed by profit, not ideas.
I suggest we can get over this hump only by promoting a popular revolution — going directly to the general population. It is when the great majority of people start getting what has been withheld from them for so long, that the fabric of corruption begins to unravel. Then sensible ideas will have a chance to gain a foothold.
Me: Excellent analysis especially the need for a grass roots movement that simplifies the messages/drives home the resolving and self interested nature of the paradigm change. We need both, that is, an integrated effort. Trying to change ego involved academics and “authorities” is a fruitless task.
“In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete.”
R. Buckminster Fuller
“If there is one thing that all of the armies of the world cannot resist, it is an idea whose time has come”