JC: GFC II?
The Great War only became World War I after World War II. So if there is another GFC, the first will become GFC I and the next will be GFC II. GFC I was predicted, in fact, but noone listened. This time, things could be different.
In any case, GFC II will be an exceptional opportunity for the left in general and non-classical economics in particular. Especially if it’s wider and deeper than GFC I. And that’s why I ask you all what should then be done?
GFC II could happen within two years. Which may not leave time for book publication. So perhaps social media will lead. That depends on us. In any case, we might prepare by discussing possibilities here, including how to make them happen when the time comes.
Maybe the tags are GFC II and 2020 Vision. What do you think?
Me: Excellent question and idea. Here’s a list of ideas and actions I’m confident would help keep us from stumbling into GFC II and WW III.
1) Recognize that the paradigm of Debt and Loan Only for the sole form and vehicle for the distribution of credit/money is probably the only socio-economic, financial, political and cultural factor that hasn’t changed in the last 5000 years.
2) Recognize that history shows us that civilizations rarely if ever remedy their disintegration and fall and those that do so on a limited basis address the disintegration via one off debt jubilees and other palliative economic reforms.
3) Recognize that leaders who are unconscious of the above and/or believe it is inevitable like Trump and Bannon may appear to be erudite but are actually conscious or unconscious merchants of chaos AND NOT SAVIORS. Integration is the answer not apathy, “fiddling while Rome burns”, delusionally believing that disintegration is the answer and that god and a coterie of intellectually unastute populist politicians will sort it all out afterward.
4) Recognize that the very process of Wisdom and its fruits of discernment and appropriate and effective action is the integration of only the truths, only the most effective workabilities, only the deepest applicabilities and only highest ethical considerations OF OPPOSING PERSPECTIVES. Wisdom/Integration is the antithesis of orthodoxy. (By the way this process and an actually new and integrative socio-economic, monetary and financial contract is what democrats need to end the disintegrativeness of Trumpism. It has to be starkly and unmistakably better and more beneficial to large constituencies of both parties otherwise it’s onward and downward.)
1) All new paradigms are in significant ways conceptually oppositional to old/current ones, thus Monetary Gifting is the new paradigm in opposition to Debt-Burden Only, and monetary, economic and financial policies aligning with the new paradigm are necessary.
2) Policy suggestions that reflect this new paradigm have already been floated before and for some time recently (debt jubilees, UBI, government deficits etc.) and more conscious perception of the natural philosophical concept of the new paradigm (gifting) and the concept behind even it (grace) will give intellectuals the fodder for more integrative ways (recognizing the digital natures of the pricing, monetary and accounting systems) to rapidly implement policies to effect the new paradigm.
3) Take the above insights and social contract policies directly to the individual with social media and a grass roots movement.
4) Broadcast the positive changes resulting from the above to other nations and their business communities and beware any covert or unconscious actions that may make war an easier possibility.
KZ: Jonathan and Craig, there are lots of books and plans out there for “remaking” the US economy. Robert Reich makes sensible and doable proposals. Political economist Gar Alperovitz, co-founder of the Democracy Collaborative makes detailed suggestions. Another source is the Institute for New Economic Thinking. The same for PopularResistence.org. All these have the same problems, however. As things stand today, they will never be considered by any American political party, even by Bernie Sanders. Mainstream economists reject these notions. The reasons for rejection? All these proposals reject industrial and financial capitalism in favor of “economic democracy.” Economic decisions would follow the same path as other democratic decisions we make. Or, as activists put it, the economy becomes as it ought to be, “our” economy. This is certainly disruptive and clearly is socialist. As I see it, it’s the only “remaking” that can save both American democracy and the American economy. There are, however sizable segments of the American population not interested in saving either.
Me: Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Distributism is the necessary integration of the sane aspects of capitalism and socialism and a grass roots movement utilizing viral cyber means to communicate its obvious benefits directly to the large constituencies of debt ridden students and recent grads, the dwindling but still enormous middle class and the equally large small to medium sized business community is the fastest route to paradigm change.