Economics of course, like every other area of human endeavor, needs rules/ethics. The laws of economics, like for instance the paradox of thrift, are not laws at all but only conundrums enforced on the economic system by the current paradigm of the monetary system, namely Debt Only, and would be resolved by integrating the new and primary monetary paradigm of Abundantly Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting.
It is logical that MONEY is the most potent and significant aspect of a MONETARY economy, so why not look at it using every one of the tools available in order to perceive how to make the money system serve us…instead of floundering around and allowing it to be a huge 5000 year old parasite and quasi psychosis, and so remain the main obstacle to economic free flowingness as it is today?
The debates about money get as ideologically rigid as the debates over economics. The two main considerations we need to have in examining money are 1) it has many aspects and definitions, but it is most basically accounting and 2) its current paradigm for the form and vehicle of its distribution is monopolistic/exclusionary and has been used to dominate the economy and the populace for the entire history of human civilization….so we most urgently require a new monetary paradigm.
Paradigms being continuing patterns are virtually hypnotic and so are virtually mentally accepted whole. They are like breathing, an essential activity we are normally unconscious of. Routinely being able to perceive them requires the integrative mental focus and discipline utilized in consciousness raising processes that exist in all of the world’s major wisdom traditions.
Two of the economists I have learned the most from about economics, Michael Hudson and Steve Keen, are contributors here and emphasize and share the above accounting and parasitical natures of the money system. They’re brilliant but, sorry to say, they’ve not acculturated the means of deciphering paradigms old and new. Hudson’s books about parasitical finance and his recent book about debt are excellent, but he misses the simple (but not simplistic) accounting operation that if intelligently applied as monetary policy would effect paradigm change. Keen looked straight at the new paradigm in recognizing that neo-liberal economics ignored money, debt and banks and yet did not perceive the concept that defines it. He even uses Godley accounting tables to enlighten the monetary effects of debt deflation and so how the flow of excess costs that technologically advanced capital intensive economies are inherently and increasingly afflicted with…must be addressed. But he missed/did not perceive the new monetary paradigm concept and how to integrate it into the economy in ways that would resolve its problems and benefit all agents individual and commercial.
The superlative mental discipline of wisdom/the integrative state of mind which includes math and science is required to fully perceive paradigms old and new is necessary….the better to perceive the pungently simple and resolving along with the delicious but much less enlightening complexities of only the problem.