Reply to a Poster On Ellen Brown’s List 03/25/2019

Me:  FED money actually distributed AS money is money NOT RESERVES. Furthermore money is its own reserves. So what’s the big deal. Helicopter money, i.e. monetary gifting is precisely what is needed…so you’re in agreement with me whether you realize it or not.

As to being cumbersome, the whole present reserve system is what is INDIRECT and cumbersome. Not that reserves aren’t also needed, they are because while implementing the new paradigm is necessary to resolve our economic problems and will become the new PRIMARY force in the money system/economy….there will of course still be loans and credit distributed by the new national banking/financial system for business start ups and continuing finance for business expansion. There is no cumbersome-ness to it. The thing that is in fact most relevant and significant is the point in time and in the entire economic/productive process that the discount/rebate policy is implemented, namely at its terminal ending point at retail sale WHERE PRODUCTION BECOMES CONSUMPTION. Why? Because no matter how much garden variety inflation has occurred before that point (always a low single digit percentage because of competition and the high costs of technologically advanced economic systems) a 50% discount at consumption point ARITHMETICALLY AND BENEFICIALLY integrates PRICE DEFLATION into profit making systems.

Simple, elegant and paradigm changing.

No other money reformer sees these specific realities implemented in their specific necessities (that the discount be at the specific point of retail sale and abundant enough to qualify for paradigm changing status because it inverts what are considered present truths, that is, that more money will inevitably produce inflation).

Neo-classical macro economists don’t see it because they swallowed whole the idea that private finance is a legitimate economic business model (it isn’t), and Social Crediters never saw it despite having the actual policy staring them in the face because they too considered private finance legitimate and were also in thrall to the classical economic dogma of statistical and general equillibrium when what was required was what I refer to as “the higher free flowing and ethical monetary disequilibrium.”

DM: Hi Steve,

You said ” and Social Crediters never saw it despite having the actual policy staring them in the face because they too considered private finance legitimate and were also in thrall to the classical economic dogma of statistical and general equilibrium.”  You just made the same assertion to Jim Schroder’s specific challenges on the SC google group.  I saw a response where you were challenged on this assertion.  I am open-minded enough to give you the benefit of the doubt that you may well be onto something here but there are certain common-sense observations that discredit you.

Me:  Liam,

The key to seeing that an abundant overflowing disequilibrium is the answer comes from understanding that a mere filling of the gap, in other words a static/statistical equilibrium….isn’t flowing at all. In fact it is a full stop. The temporal universe inherently flows/is free flowing and if the economy which is utterly embedded within the temporal universe is to match that reality it has to be inherently free flowing as well. The only way to accomplish that is invert the current inherent and continual scarcity of total individual income in ratio to total costs and so prices into a continual abundant disequilibrium in ratio to same.

Malinvestment will always have to be factored into offering credit and regulation of the economy will also always be necessary. In a less than rational and ethical world continual vigilance will always be necessary. To think otherwise is either market worshiping or naiveté.

Look at all of the benefits to both the individual and businesses that I have enumerated many times here before of a high percentage discount/rebate policy, and also consider that if the gap is only filled with a paltry dividend and discount then enterprise assisted by finance will undoubtedly simply match and/or exceed that inflation rate and undo its intended positive purpose. You have to give commercial decision makers a clearly better, more rational and more beneficial option to raising their prices when they see more money coming into a system with an inherent scarcity of individual income/business revenue.

Look at it this way. The curve of a failed orbital injection looks virtually like the business cycle. Perfect curve matching is impossible for the same reason that a mere statistical filling of the gap is a full stop and violates the free flowing nature of the temporal universe. However, by reaching the higher rate of velocity orbital free fall/free flowingness/freedom from gravity can be attained and maintained.

DM:  All you have offered here is opinion.  You have failed to show that putting too much discount (i.e. new money that a national credit authority will need to give to the merchant to make the price good) is not going to cause problems.  Your say-so is just not good enough.  The math doesn’t work.  We both agree as to what not enough looks like.  That’s what we have now.  But now you’re trying to tell me that enough is not enough.  I don’t buy it.

Me:  Actually the problem is you and the rest of the social crediters aren’t looking at the fact that the abundant discount/rebate resolves the two biggest and most chronic problems of modern economies i.e. individual monetary scarcity and price inflation. If you go back over their objections on the social credit forum you’ll see that all of the other things they alleged MIGHT happen are easily handled by the regulatory regimes I countered them with. The book has like 20 specific policy, taxation and regulatory planks to it. No offense but neither you nor they are students of the signatures of historically accomplished paradigm changes, which I enumerate in the book also, and so your perspective does not rise to the integrative level of paradigm perception. Thus you’re stuck in overly worrisome concern with complexities instead of finding and understanding integrative solutions. It’s a perspective problem that is inherent to paradigm changes. It’s difficult to perceive a paradigm because it requires that one step outside of their current cultural horizon and also outside of the orthodoxies and complexities of the area in which the paradigm change applies, in this case economics.

DM:  You might be right and you might be wrong.  Good luck getting critical mass for these views.  I’m not a buyer because I don’t believe.  There is nothing static about adding new money of a sufficient amount at a point of sale to facilitate the liquidation of all merchandise.  Even what we have now is not static.  It is just not sufficient for periods of time, and the consequences in those periods of time (i.e. busts) are devastating to many.  I don’t care if the change is not a paradigm shift.  I just care if it gets fixed.  If it gets fixed, that is enough of a paradigm shift for me.

I guess we will agree to disagree.  I have not seen a single person on either google group who agrees with you, so that should tell you something.  You may be correct but you have not made your case.  If you can’t convince people who actually understand money and how it works, how can you move forward?  Give us more than an opinion and your beliefs.  Beliefs are often not truths, just delusions.

Me:  I HAVE made my case that the way to make the economy, which is inextricably embedded in the temporal universe, mirror it is to make it free flowingly monetarily abundant. In other words make it ACTUALLY DYNAMICALLY free flowing NOT haltingly static. Science says truth is matching temporal and/or empirical reality. That’s what I’m calling for.

Steve Keen emphasizing the necessity of dynamics is correct. “Dynamic” Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) is false and inadequate as a theory. He just doesn’t have the knowledge of the economic/productive process and the significance of its ending point of retail sale like Douglas had with his grounding in cost accounting and calculus.

That’s fine, we’ll have to agree to disagree, although consider this: Too much knowledge (in the form of outdated and/or discredited orthodoxy) is actually an impediment to increased insight.

You also might consider that social credit which has gone absolutely no where since Douglas’ passing, needs an imminently sellable message THAT HOOKS EVERYONE’S OBVIOUS SELF INTEREST (BOTH INDIVIDUAL AND COMMERCIAL WHILE BASICALLY IGNORING THE “AUTHORITIES) IS THE WAY TO AWAKEN THEM TO ITS NEED. If it eventually needs to be tweeked with a little lower percentage, so be it, but lets be smart about selling it….the better to accomplish the eventual political battle necessary to make it the new reality.

***********************************************

As a follow up consider that with a high percentage discount at retail sale and a $1000/mo. universal dividend (essentially a guaranteed income of $24,000/yr. for everyone 18 and older) that the transfer taxes both the individual and enterprise pay for welfare, unemployment insurance and social security will become redundant and could be eliminated. Just another example of how integratively beneficial such a monetary regime could be.

Also, if you don’t have to worry about inflation or unemployment because both beneficial price deflation and a guaranteed reasonable lifestyle have been implemented, then the USA could immediately begin to re-industrialize in the most productive, efficient and ecologically sane way possible.

Also consider: With a graciously benevolent government directly distributing price deflation why would we need income taxes as a means of fighting inflation? Such a government could directly fund itself and minimally tax individuals and commercial agents only to establish the fact that its freeing graciousness….is also sovereignly powerful…..and if you can’t live ethically within such a freeing and beneficial system by cheating or trying to undermine it….you will definitely get slapped down big time.

Greater freedom AND Moral clarity…just another couple of examples of the beneficial “knock on” effect of the new monetary paradigm aligned with the following three aspects of the natural philosophical concept of grace: abundance, benevolence and sovereignty.

And if you simply “fill” the gap with a paltry 3-4% discount none of this is possible. How penny wise and pound foolish is that???

GA:  Hi Steve, I hope Bob and you and others would read the dreadful quote I found and included in an article I just published. It is the Fed doing the quoting, back in the Great Depression and it is really bad. I will post the link below. I am glad you see the benefit of helicopter money. As far as your system of discounts, it would be interesting if it could be done in a controlled environment. Like maybe one state or a small nation or even one city.

Me: Thanks for the reply Gary. The FED is obviously the handmaiden of the private banks, and that will never change short of having a publicly administered NATIONAL banking system based upon and firmly aligned with the new monetary paradigm of Abundantly Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting….and the concept behind even that….the natural philosophical concept of grace as in abundance, benevolence and political and ethical sovereignty. Anything private banks can do a public national bank, with its mandated policies of funding a universal dividend and a 50% discount/rebate at the point of retail sale, can do a helluva lot better, and would do a lot less harm than occasionally fomenting asset inflations in the stock and home building industries and/or taking leave of its moorings by creating idiocies like MBS, CDS, and synthetic MBS and CDS.

As for needing an example, money is ultimately fungible and retail sale is part of the woof and warp of the economic process itself and so those two facts are really example enough of how seamlessly it would work. The supreme irony is all of the erudite complexities and confusions espoused about economics and the economy BY economists are resolvable by simply looking directly at the economic process, perceiving that retail sale is its terminal ending and so also the final expression point for any of its problems, in this case inflation and scarcity of individual income/business revenue. Even brilliant guys like Steve Keen doesn’t see it. Why? Because he’s off in thrice removed abstract mathematical theorizing….instead of looking directly at the economy and its process and so he’s missed the significances to be found there at the ultimate pivoting point of retail sale and a policy implemented at that point and time.

I wouldn’t be opposed of course to a local or state level example, but in order for it to actually be funded correctly and sufficiently you’re going to need a federal level monetary authority mandated to distribute the dividend and discount policies. And even if you did that what would stop the Fed from jacking the FED funds rate like it did with Paul Volker and adding all manner of additional costs to the system, or the big banks going on an idiotic derivatives mania. No! It’s both Occam’s razor and an honest confronting of Lord Acton’s dictum that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely to simply have a non-profit national public banking system. No more Martians laughing at us. Do the job, do it right and do it terminatedly.

GA:  Steve and Ellen,

Most money created by the Fed, BOJ, etc, is sterilized. Not classic fiat like Greenbacks or helicopter money. The Fed has a rule, Fed money is created in exchange for bonds. If a bank loans broad money, it is secured by a house or a car or something of value, not pure fiat.

TLTRO money in the Eurozone can be tied to the same collateral multiple times, and there is collateral pledged multiple times in derivatives from what I have read, rehypothication, on Wall Street and even more recklessly in the Square Mile.
Sometimes a little real fiat money would help!

Me:  Gary, the reality is the FED is the handmaiden of the big banks who loan first and look for reserves later, and any prestidigitation requirement to create bonds is simply another way to insure and enforce the Debt Only paradigm that private finance currently and idiotically is allowed to enforce.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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