Social Credit Debate/Paradigm Thread Cont.

JS: There is no difference between a fee and an interest rate.  Interest rates are just used to determine a loan repayment schedule.  And a loan repayment schedule can be used to determine the interest rate.  So if you add a “fee” to the principal of the loan and determine a loan repayment schedule, you can solve for the interest rate that was charged in the loan.  Anyone familiar with financial mathematics is going to laugh when you say you’re going to charge a service fee instead of an interest rate on loans.

Me:  This is just fretting over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Thrift is always a valid consideration in micro-economics and a high percentage discount/rebate policy enables us to transcend the macro-economic problems of the quantity theory of money, inflation, the paradox of thrift and the so called fallacy of composition in the money system by reducing it to accounting. Social Crediters fail to see the paradigmatic posibilities of the high percentage discount/rebate policy.

Banking with interest violates the end of the valid economic/productive process at the point of retail sale, foolishly allows a small individual elite and an illigitimate business model to dominate the individual and every other ACTUALLY legitimate business model and violates the insight that in an inevitably less than rational and ethical world power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Let’s be done with such foolishness and get on with the implementation of monetary grace as in gifting in economics and the self actualization of grace within ourselves.

JS:  Hi Steve,

Sorry, false analogy.  My minor in university was mathematics, and one thing I like about mathematics is you can’t bullshit in mathematics.
1+1 does not equal 3.  It can’t.
Interest rates and service fees are the exact same thing.  The math proves it.  You can’t bullshit math.
Me:  The problem is your USE of mathematics to justify and obscure the fact that finance is not a legitimate economic/productive process because it violates the finality of retail sale, and your continuing to do such is just a dramatization of the 5000 year old acculturation of finance and its ledgerdemain.

JS:  Steve,

You’re purposefully obfuscating.
I’m using math to demonstrate that a service fee and interest rates are the same thing, the price of the loan!  I’m making absolutely no value judgements on either.  I’m demonstrating that the two are different in name only.  Mathematically, they are the exact same thing.
In other words, if you condemn interest, but promote service fees, you are either ignorant or dishonest, because they are the exact same thing – the price of the loan, and one can be mathematically converted into the other, and vice versa.
Now, I argue that banks need to be able to charge a price for their loans, because banks have real costs associated with those loans (labour, capital, materials, risk of default, inflation, dividends paid on deposits etc..J, and in a competitive system, they must be able to recover their costs and earn a profit.
Are those profits excessive?  Maybe?  But that’s not the issue.
The issue is Andrew is saying service fees are SUBSTANTIALLY different than interest rates.  They are not!  They are just different mathematical ways of expressing the price of the loan.

Me:  I’m not obfuscating at all. I’m advocating a new paradigm which REQUIRES one to “think outside of the box”….about EVERYTHING in the OLD paradigm.

“The issue is Andrew is saying service fees are SUBSTANTIALLY different than interest rates.  They are not!  They are just different mathematical ways of expressing the price of the loan.”
That’s you and his issue not mine. The fact that finance violates the finality of retail sale and so is not a valid economic/PRODUCTIVE business model, and needs to become a legitimate economic model by additionally extending the discount/rebate policy to note signing AFTER retail sale so that it serves Man instead of Man having to slavishly serve it….is my issue.

JS:  Hi Steve,

If your new paradigm involves abandoning math, or consequently, abandoning deductive reasoning, then I don’t have any use for it, and I think the vast majority of people will agree with me.
Math is deductive reasoning.  Through the use of math, or deductive reasoning, it can be demonstrated that the exact same loan repayment schedule can be calculated using a service fee and an interest rate, and as a consequence, any loan repayment schedule calculated using a service fee can have an interest rate solved for by simply rearranging the mathematical formula.
Interest rates and service fees are the same thing – the price of the loan.  So arguing you’re going to replace interest with a service fee is arguing you’re going to change the name of interest to service fee.  That’s ridiculous.  You haven’t eliminated interest (the price of the loan), you’ve merely changed the name.
Now, it could be argued that we aren’t going to charge a service fee or an interest rate on loans.  This at least is an honest argument, albeit ridiculous.  If banks cannot charge a service fee or interest rate, how do they recover their costs, never mind earn a profit.  And in a competitive, capitalist system, companies must recover their costs, or they go out of business (unless the taxpayer is going to subsidize them).
Social Credit is certainly heterodox economics, but in saying that, it doesn’t abandon all economic reasoning.  The problem with heterodox economics, and I’ve seen it elsewhere, is that it tends to attract those who are totally uneducated in economics.  You cannot run a banking system without interest, unless you’re just going to change the name and call it a service fee.

Me:  “If your new paradigm involves abandoning math, or consequently, abandoning deductive reasoning, then I don’t have any use for it, and I think the vast majority of people will agree with me.”

It does neither of course. A truly fiat money system reflects grace as in soverignty, free flowingness and abundance. A fiat money system based on profit is the polar opposite of grace, i.e. dominance assured.
“If banks cannot charge a service fee or interest rate, how do they recover their costs, never mind earn a profit.  And in a competitive, capitalist system, companies must recover their costs, or they go out of business (unless the taxpayer is going to subsidize them).”
Private finance is NOT a legitimate business model because it violates the finality of retail sale and the universal (and correct) insight I posted about power. Neither private nor public banking can be entrusted with a monopoly on credit creation. However, a public banking/central banking system GUIDED BY THE CONCEPT OF GRACE AND CONSCIOUSLY USING THE POWER OF MONEY FOR BOTH SOVEREIGN AND BENEVOLENT PURPOSES can be entrusted with such and it also follow’s the wisdom of Occam’s Razor.
Social Crediters would do better to do an exegesis of their primary concept of grace and contemplate its many redeeming and universally applicable aspects, rather than alloying its redemptive power by continually regurgitating far lesser concepts. Have faith in grace…it won’t disappoint.

JS:  Joe,

You cant reason with zealots.  They deny math and the rules of double entry accounting.

Me:  You’re right you can’t reason with zealots, but you can be reasonable about INTEGRATING monetary gifting INTO the MONOPOLISTIC paradigm of Debt ONLY, and then being as validly microeconomically thrifty as possible and recognizing the wisdom of Occam’s Razor’s dictum that the simplest explanation is almost always the best and right one. In these ways I neither deny math, double entry bookkeeping nor fall into dogmatism. Grace is the concept behind all of social credit and yet it is not well understood by them. Why? For the same reasons religionists so often fail to understand it or live by it and/or they are not actually focused on it.  That is they fall into irrationally hating the jews out some dogmatic zealotry or spend more time and attention on some distraction like a political belief or political figure….and so they fail to personally SELF ACTUALIZE the experience of grace.

That is how they fail to have a direct and reciprocal relationship with god/grace and they settle for faith IN grace as a zealously held belief….instead of making the experience more real by contemplation/prayer

JS:  Hi Steve,

But you are denying math if you claim an interest rate is different from a service fee in anything but name only.
You can wrap your denial in all the flowery verbiage you want.  But if that’s your claim, then you DO deny math, and that would make you a zealot.
I’ve been at this a long time.  I’ve seen many good hearted people come on this list because they see the potential of Social Credit for solving many of the ills the world is plagued with today.  I am very sympathetic to that, because that is what initially led me here.  The problem is that if our ideas and beliefs are just built upon our emotions, and not based in any reason, they will fade, and will never be taken seriously.  It is VERY important to me that we are taken seriously.  Populist movements always fail, because they aren’t based in reason.  God is the Logos, and Jesus was the Logos incarnate.  Logos is what allows us to communicate and associate with each other.  Without it, we’d be like beasts, subject only to our passions.
I’m empathetic to much of what you write, because I believe its consistent with Christian theology, and Social Credit philosophy.  But there’s much more to Social Credit than philosophy, even though it is ultimately based upon it.  Douglas identified an accounting flaw that manifests itself in a macro-economic problem.  The solution, which is based in the analysis of the flaw, combined with a philosophy consistent with the Christian concept of Grace is a price rebate and national dividend:  the size of which is dependent on aggregate consumption and production statistics, and a proper accounting of a national capital account.  These are scientific principles necessary to remedy the problem, and are consistent with the philosophy of grace.

Me:  “But you are denying math if you claim an interest rate is different from a service fee in anything but name only.”

I’m not denying that….I’m ignoring it….BECAUSE ITS OLD PARADIGM THINKING. In a fiat money system guided by the natural philosophical concept of grace the government can be fully funded with only a smallish SOVEREIGNTY ESTABLISHING level of income taxation, and every personal and commercial loan can be issued interest free as the valid microeconomic value of thrift applies….AND A HIGH PERCENTAGE DISCOUNT/REBATE POLICY ENABLES us to do that by not only eliminating inflation, but painlessly and beneficially integrating price deflation into profit making systems.
By every definition and historically verifiable signature….THE ABOVE IS A PARADIGM CHANGE.
Paradigm changes make evident all of the fallacious orthodoxies and cut through all of the obscuring complexities of an old paradigm, and if it doesn’t THEN ITS JUST ANOTHER PERTURBATION OF THE ORBIT OF MARS/MERE REFORM….AND NOT AN ACTUAL PARADIGM CHANGE.

JS:  Steve, once again you’re  obfuscating.

It’s a simple debate tactic, but in honesty, what you’re writing is gobbley gook.
I might as well reply blah, blah, blah to your posts.
If your new paradigm denies math and accounting, then good luck with that.  You cannot communicate with that, and it’s doomed to failure.
If your new paradigm denies corporations, including banks, to recover their costs and earn a profit, then good luck with that.
Now, you’ll respond in typical fashion by saying that you said none of that, but the reply is that you aren’t really saying anything. You’re just repeating talking points in your head without addressing anything I’ve said.
New paradigm, gifting, grace.  I get it!
The problem is that does not address the point in regards to HOW banking will be operated, and how they will recover their costs and earn a profit.  Saying new paradigm, gifting, grace does not address that point.  And if you’re unclear, there’s no shame in that, just don’t try to make it out that you’ve got those details figured out in your head.

Me:  I’m not in any way obfuscating, and you. just. aren’t. getting. it. about the fact that the costs of banking will be paid by simply creating and distributing whatever costs a PUBLIC NON-PROFIT banking/central banking system may incur.

This doesn’t violate accounting. Costs will be incurred….and they’ll be paid.  You’re attempting to apply old paradigm orthodoxies and necessities….to the new paradigm. Everything with profit making enterprise will be correctly accounted for and paid. It’s just that with a non-profit banking/central banking system..there will be no NEED to pay profits. Part of Wisdomics-Gracenomics will be to make the money system a fourth constitutionally separate branch of government that will not be able to be changed by the whims of the legislative or executive branches.

JS:   Oh, I get it. You just now clarified.

So, what incentive to reduce costs is there in any non-profit bank?  You do believe there are real costs associated with banking?
Me:  First, a non-profit banking system will obviously hugely reduce costs for individuals and commercial enterprises. Second, most of the temporal infrastructure of the present banking system will be unnecessary as the new banking system will be as cutting edge cybernetic and artificial intelligence based as possible thus making any old infrastructure minimally necessary to purchase and new such infrastructure minimal as well. Third, part of the legislation creating the new constitutionally separate money system will have salary structures based on the current civil service system not the incredibly unbalanced current financialy parasitic and top heavy monstrosity. Finally, the individuals who comprise the new system will be educated about and pledge to abide by micro-economic values and virtues as their decisions will effect both the micro and macro-economy. They will also be encouraged to understand the aspects of grace as in sovereign and yet benevolent power and anyone executing actions that ignore or violate these values and ideas will face loss of job and/or legal sanction.
JS:  What?  This defies common sense, and most importantly, experience.  The communists thought it would be cheaper to produce goods and services without profit as well (are you a communist?), because, ceterus paribus, if you eliminate profit and price is cost + profit, then price = cost, which is less than cost + profit.  First, if this is true, why not just eliminate all profit?  The reason, of course,  is that the assumption of “ceterus paribus” is untrue.  Profit is the incentive to minimize costs, and once that incentive is removed, costs are no longer minimized.  Anyone with a modicum of experience knows this was true for all the old communist countries that eliminated profit, and it’s true for government owned services here today.  They are run very inefficiently because there is no incentive to be efficient.

Me:  Jim,

You’re ILLOGICALLY conflating a non-profit banking system with a non-profit economic system….WHICH I AM NOT ADVOCATING. A 30 yr mortgage (with real estate commissions and insurance) at 4% for a $200k house is $995/mo. A $200k house reduced both at retail sale and at note signing by 50% would be $50k. At 0% on a 10 year note that would be $417/mo. And you’re telling me that is not a cost saving for the individual???
As I am not advocating eliminating profit in any legitimate enterprise the incentive to keep costs down is still in effect for them. In fact as every enterprise can take advantage of a 50% discount to their prices and still get their full best competitive price with the rebate aspect of the discount/rebate…there would undoubtedly be further cost cutting as volume of sales is the route to higher profits.
You’re reacting emotionally to what I say and not paying close attention. I have NEVER advocated eliminating profit in the economy for legitimate business models and I have been clear in numerous posts that I DID advocate a non-profit banking system. Asking me if I was a communist pretty silly considering these facts.
The Soviet Union was born into a long historical culture of authoritarian government and a less than well developed justice and legal system which resulted in the monstrously dominating, corrupt and inefficient economy and political system that eventually fell of its own slovenly and unethical weight.  Thank god we have a better history here in Canada and the US….despite the authoritarian and disintegrative proclivities of Mr. Trump who will undoubtedly pay the price for his cavalier attitude toward the rule of law before he took office and apparently afterwards as well. The lesson should be obvious to anyone actually valuing democratic and republican institutions and processes.
JT:  You obviously can’t see it,  “yet”,   but what you’re proposing will lead straight to a version of communism, and centralized control over every aspect of every individual’s life, (except, of course, the politburo at the top).
JS:  A bank has real costs to to recover.   Either it charges a price, or it does not.  If it does, then that’s interest.  If not, then it is subsidized.  There is no other alternative.
The nationalization of banking is a plank in the communist manifesto.  That’s why I asked whether you advocate communism.  Interest free loans has nothing to donwith Social Credit, and there’s many reasons, stated numerous times on this list, why it either won’t work, or it will involve the centralization of banking and policy into an even larger monopoly.

Me:  Private finance is NOT a legitimate business model because it violates the finality of retail sale which is the terminal ending point for all costs. That makes every attempt to justify private for profit finance irrelevant.

“What you’re advocating is the taxpayer subsidization of banking.”
No I’m not. As I previously pointed out the costs of a non-profit publicly administered  banking system would be paid by the fourth branch of the government via DIRECT CREATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FIAT MONEY AND NOT VIA TAXATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTERPRISE.
“A bank has real costs to recover.   Either it charges a price, or it does not.  If it does, then that’s interest.  If not, then it is subsidized.  There is no other alternative.”
NOT correct. Private and public banking both incur costs. Private banking charges a price that includes costs plus profit, public banking does NOT include the latter and as I just showed the fourth branch of the government would DIRECTLY pay its costs WITHOUT BURDENING EITHER THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTERPRISE VIA TAXATION. That is THE ALTERNATIVE YOU SAY does not and cannot exist.  Open your mind to it.
“The nationalization of banking is a plank in the communist manifesto.  That’s why I asked whether you advocate communism.  Interest free loans has nothing to donwith Social Credit, and there’s many reasons, stated numerous times on this list, why it either won’t work, or it will involve the centralization of banking and policy into an even larger monopoly.”
Grace as in benevolent service as opposed to illigitimate parasitical dominance will guide the public banking system via the empirical and temporal universe effects of the policies of Wisdomics-Gracenomics so that profit making systems may be re-juvenated and thrive.  That’s a funny kind of communism.
“I’m beginning to get the feeling that Steve seems to think that all we need to do is create as much money as possible, and that will somehow transform society into a utopia.  This is the red herring that Gary North attacked in his book, Salvation Through Inflation,  where this is what he claims Social Crediters are promoting.”
You forget that a 50% discount/rebate would eliminate inflation and integrate price deflation into profit making systems. Innovating the CRP in that way enables us to drop the mistaken concept of a statistical general equilibrium that social crediters have unwittingly culturally adopted. Again, such inversions of reality are the hallmark of paradigm change. I suggest you study such as it is the best way to rid oneself from errant old paradigm orthodoxies.

JS quotes in bold and my replies:  “Input costs (financial costs) are carried forward, consumer goods costs are not.”

Precisely, you make my point. Any product, like a house for instance, whose costs the consumer is not able to fully pay for at retail sale are economically problematic and any additional costs, i.e. financial costs, expose the exterior parasitical economic illigitimacy of  private for profit finance.  
“This is a subsidy!  You can’t just print money and make something “free”.  This is what I suspected.  You think that we can just magically print money and create an utopia.”
First its NOT a subsidy as it subsidizes no one and no economic agent because a non-profit public banking system is not a part of the profit making economic system. Second, if you can’t “just print money” ….what the hell is the justification for a universal dividend and the monies of a CRP????
I’ve listened to these arguments umpteen times.  They’re proposed by people who don’t understand basic economics.”
Paradigm changes over turn THE ORTHODOXIES of “basic economics”. Again, I suggest you study the history and effects of paradigm changes.
It is a funny kind of communism, but not that much different than “from each according to his abilities, to each according to their needs”.  Sounds very good in theory, but the devil is in the details.”
I’ve responded to each and all of the details you and Joe have posted about and how they could be resolved. Your counter arguments have all been regurgitations of old paradigm orthodoxies and attempts to invalidate me with smear tactics which are the classical tactics of propagandists for orthodox powers, and despite the fact that I have shown that what I advocate in no way would do away with private property or profit….and in fact would do away with socialist re-distributive taxation and completely stabilize and rejuvenate profit making systems.
The antidote for orthodoxy is personally coming into a new unit of time and honestly confronting the realities created by a genuine paradigm change.

JS  quotes in bold and my replies:   No, that’s not what it exposes.  Are you suggesting that everyone should be able to afford any house at any price?

Social Credit is concerned with macro-economics, not micro-economics.  
It’s concerned with both and is founded in micro-economics.
What exposes a problem is that AGGREGATE debt increases over time.
It exposes the monetary problem….NOT the paradigmatic problem.
Not the fact that individuals need to go into debt in order to afford something at a particular point in time.
That is what the banks who enjoy a profit making PRIVATE monopoly PARADIGM would argue.
That’s pretty much the definition of a subsidy Steve.  Not only are they not making a profit, they’re not even recovering their costs from the public via prices.  That’s EXACTLY what a subsidy is.
A government directly funding a government entity is monetary wisdom, a sovereign right of government and not a subsidy, and it eliminates socialist re-distributive taxation to boot. A government subsidizing a private for profit commercial agent is a subsidy.
What the dividend and price rebate hope to accomplish is equilibrium, or that point at which prices=incomes.
A statistical equilibrium doesn’t resolve the problem….and when social crediters realize that hopefully they’ll realize that “the higher disequilibrium” policies of Wisdomics-Gracenomics…DO SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
Nobody is saying you can just print money and create real wealth.  
Correct, and neither am I.  I’m making the economy free flowing with strategically applied abundant money.Interest free loans to both enterprise and the individual still have repayment costs….they are not just free.
You don’t even understand what you’re criticizing.  
I’ve learned a lot of both social credit and current economic orthodoxy over the last 10 years since the great financial crisis of 2008.
Orthodoxy is not entirely incorrect. 
Never said it was ENTIRELY incorrect.
What you are advocating, in the belief that you can just create money and make banking free, is the inflation of consumer goods.  And don’t give me the nonsense about the price rebate.  The price rebate applies to the current price of goods, so if they inflate, the price rebate cannot bring the prices down (ie. if inflation is 50% and the price rebate is 50%, prices have remained the same – there is no reduction in price).
As I have posted here before normal garden variety inflation, particularly demand pull inflation is necessarily a small single digit percentage due to competition between and within business models and the high costs of fixed capital intensive high technology economic systems. Also, hyper inflations are extremely rare because they require certain temporal universe economic circumstances like war, the destruction of most if not all of an economy’s means of production and a compliant central bank that leverages up speculators that short the currency and so initiate the hyperness.
Given these facts a 50% discount/rebate policy at retail sale WILL eliminate inflation and actually integrate price deflation into profit making systems. And if we only have a 4-5% CRP you can bet that the banks and other commercial agents will match that….and undo the intention of the CRP.
Money is NOT the primary cause of inflation. The primary cause is, commercial agents existing in an economic system with scarcity of individual income and hence business revenue…raising their prices in an understandable attempt to garner more business revenue….BECAUSE THERE IS NO PRESENT MORE BENEFICIAL ALTERNATIVE. And the 50% discount/rebate policy provides that alternative.

JT:   Hi  Jim,What you’ve written below is  very well put, and true.  Neither of us have intentionally “smeared” Steve, I’m sure, even if we’ve both, (separately, because we haven’t discussed this between ourselves),  noticed a similarity between his ideas and communism.

It’s obvious that Steve himself can’t see this, yet, and maybe never will.   And naturally  denies the suggestion entirely.   But the perception we’ve both formed would undoubtedly be noticed by others should his ‘additions to it’ be passed off by him as actual Social Credit.

Worse, for him, it would also undoubtedly be noticed by many of the general public he hopes to bring on-side to effect his great Paradigm Shift.  I think he’s going to be spending more time trying to deny that than Social Crediters have spent denying we’re anti-Semites.

If he’s determined to proceed with what he sees as this great Paradigm Shift through Public Banking, no-interest, and debt-free spending by government for everything, I hope he chooses some other name to promote it under.   “Gracenomics” , or something like that ~ anything other than Social Credit. For THAT it most certainly is NOT.

Me:  Joe,

The only reason what I say appears to you to be akin to communism is because it is an actual integration of ONLY the truths in apparent opposites of capitalism and socialism/communism….instead of simply a reaction to one or the other of these. As I have shown it has none of the untruths, unworkabilities and ethical flaws of socialism like elimination of profit, private property and top down political tyranny. And it also has none of the inhumane aspects and idiocies of capitalism like justifying the economic validity and dominance of private finance’s monopoly paradigm of Debt Only.
Only mental integrations of truths, workability etc. lead anywhere but endless contention and eventual disintegration of discussion…and as we see now eventually social and political disintegration.  Integrations, only true and actual integrations can become thirdnesses greater onenesses, that is they are neither of the two arrogant opposing perspectives but a genune difference/alternative. And if you do a study of paradigm changes that kind of NEW alternative is one of its cardinal signatures.
Thirdness greater oneness is reflected in all historical paradigm changes like for instance where Christ declared and gave expression to grace as the alternative to the imperial brute force power of the Roman Empire and the dead letter of the law formalism of Judaism. But you have to develope the willingness to look for and use an integrative ethic and mindset or one falls back into mere contentious dualisms.
I know where I’m at and it’s neither capitalism nor socialism/communism. And it’s also neither orthodox social credit nor orthodox economics….it’s the thirdness greater oneness of Wisdomics-Gracenomics.


JS:   Yeah, and Marx though he was applying “thirdness” with the Hegelian “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” model as well.  In fact, what you’re writing in this regard is very Marxist, and is applying the same model.

Personally, I think there is no integration of truth with untruth in order to bring about a higher truth.  And I believe Marxian economics to be untrue,  so there can be no synthesis with it that leads to a higher truth.  I also disagree with the Hegelian dialectic.
Me:  Marx definitely exploited Hegel’s dialectic for his own ideological purposes, hence we should not just be reactionary toward it in that regard. Marx’s labor theory of value is definitely wrong, however the trinitarian/trinity-unity-oneness-process of Hegel is a fundamental and universal logic found throughout nature, mathematics, science and spirituality like for instance Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The integrative process of wisdom is a sanctification process of only truth(s) that follows that trinitarian model.
  “I don’t claim there is a “paradigmatic problem”, you do.  And it’s incumbent on you to demonstrate it.”

JS quotes in red and my replies:  There IS a paradigmatic problem. The paradigm of Debt ONLY for the sole form and vehicle for the creation and distribution of money/credit has been in effect for the entire history of human civilization. Except for consciousness itself it is the thorniest and most persistent problem mankind has ever had. In my book I show how all of the signatures of imminent paradigm change are present in the current crisis within the current paradigm, and how Wisdomics-Gracenomics fulfills everyone of the signatures of accomplished paradigm changes throughout history.  
This is why discussing anything with you is so frustrating.  You just claimed above that you aren’t claiming that people should be able to afford any house at any price.   Now you’re claiming THE EXACT OPPOSITE just a few sentences after.  Now you’ll claim I didn’t understand, and talk about wisdom, grace and integration and purposefully obfuscate the discussion.

Anyone, raise your hand if you can understand what Steve is promoting?
I never did any such thing. I never claimed that EVERYONE should be able to have a million dollar house. My second response was to your justification of private banking/lending which I completely reject because it is additional costs over and above the cost of debt repayment itself (which is legitimate) enforced before the economic process begins for enterprise, saturated throughout the entirety of the legitimate economic/PRODUCTIVE process and also post retail sale as interest…..and I’m not claiming that interest is the ONLY problem even though being an additional cost post retail sale it is a large PART of private finance’s already invalid and parasitic nature to the actually PRODUCTIVE process.  Publicly administered non-profit finance would still loan money guided by the concept of grace and economic creditability. I’m not opposed to that, and the non-profit nature of a public banking system and my policy of extending the end of the entire economic process to both retail sale and the point of note creation is a way to further make finance serve man instead of making him serve it. I’ve said all of these things before here, but the orthodox/reality filters do not duplicate what I’ve said. That’s not necessarily a “knock”, but it’s also a well known and oft observed phenomenon with human beings.
Socialism is “monetary wisdom”?
We/ve been here before several times. I advocate for direct monetary distributism NOT re-distributive socialist means. None of the policy effects of what I advocate even remotely resemble socialism or communism. The publicly administered banking and financial system could be mis-contrued as such, but as I advocate that it be a fourth branch of government constitutionally separate and arms length from the executive and legislative branches (unlike with socialist/communist thinking) and its monetary powers guided by the aspects of grace….it in actuality is NOT the same thing.
Social Credit is not a static equilibrium.  Income and prices are FLOWS, which means the equilibrium between them is dynamic by definition.
They are flows that are paltry and gameable. It is necessary to have abundantly over flowing flows in order to be philosophically/logically consistent with the concept of grace, and also to approximate the free flowing aspect of grace. 
But you’re making banking free, so once again you’re contradicting yourself.  Or does the law of contradicti on not apply to wisdomics?
No I’m not. Private for profit finance/banking IS NOT a legitimate economic/PRODUCTIVE business model. That’s why it must be free from ADDITIONAL costs over and above the defined costs (that is repayment costs) of DEBT ITSELF….which ARE legitimate costs. I’m not doing away with debt…just integrating the new paradigm of abundantly direct and reciprocal monetary grace as in gifting into the debt based system in a deeply resolving way that is (very accurately and CONSISTENTLY) philosophically aligned with the pinnacle concept of wisdom, namely grace.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s