Thread on RWER Blog Regarding Paradigm Perception

Me: As wisdom is the integrative mental process itself including any additional study in an analysis is the correct vector, but this is done on a fairly routine basis in most scientific studies, probably less in economics and the money systems than most, that is true.

However, until science overcomes its more than 500 year old foolish and reactionary rejection of the fundamental fact of human self awareness/consciousness (whatever one attributes its reality to) it will hamstring its research methods and worse yet its level of knowledge/epistemology. Knowing every little dogmatic jot and tittle of the bible and insisting on strict empiricism, reductivism and mental dualism in science are simply two sides of the same coin.

Economics requires science to consult wisdom and its pinnacle concept of grace/graciousness/love in action as policy….implemented at the most reality changing point of the economic/productive process at retail sale. Don’t be a religiously erudite scientistic dunce, be wise and scientific. It’s both integrative and scientific in the highest sense.

KZ:  Craig, many comments on this blog ask about other options to organize economics, apart from the physics model built into the current discipline. A model that is completely ill suited for economics. I offer geology as one option. An option that, in my view fits the kind of science economists must do since their study subject is more uncertain, more fuzzy, more changeable than most. Biological science might work as well. Though I don’t believe it fits as well.

Me:  Why not integrate philosophy/a new philosophical concept into economics and strategically apply it to the monetary system which currently parasitically sits upon everyone and every legitimate business model with a policy that is the very expression of the new monetary paradigm of Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting?

“A new economic philosophy” is what Steve Keen said was needed a couple years ago at a meeting in Europe that called for a new Reformation in economics. It’s just that he didn’t have paradigm perception. The Reformation was a paradigm shift itself which being the perception of conceptual essences is the same level of mental integration of the truths in opposites as wisdom, which is precisely what is needed.

As I said in my prior post science integrates other sciences already. Economists and economic pundits simply need to “up their game to it”.

KZ:  Craig, sounds nebulous to me. How about this. Drop the physics-imitation and all mathematics beyond descriptive statistics and see what develops. Comparing multiple possible answers as do biology, geology, and some others might be added later.

Me:  Surprised to see the classic empiricist, scientistic response from an anthropologist.

Economics’ problem is it apes the scientistic side of physics not its cutting edge quantum one which courageously dares to embrace a concept like grace as in the continual integrative, interactive particle flow of the cosmos which reflects and comes back to the Hindu concept of Shiva’s dance experienced over 6000 years ago.

KZ:  Craig, as I noted physics owes a lot to star gazing, religion, and the mysteries of mathematics for what it is. So, some philosophical form of integrated truth following in physics would not surprise me. I’d be happier if physics, and economics just turned into everyday workable and useful sciences. Right now both are scientific outliers that do no good for anyone. Not even their practitioners.

Me:  I’d go along with that, but what’s unworkable and non-utilitarian about an ending, pivoting and paradigm changing point in the economic process where a simple algebraic operation and monetary policy resolves the two biggest and most stubborn problems of modern economies? And I’m not talking changes it a little, but changes the entire pattern.

KZ:  Craig, no problem with it at all. If it works. One of the reasons planners use models rather than social experiments to test out their proposed policies is that it’s always better to explode a model than a city, state, or region. Or, perhaps a nation. So, model your proposal and let’s take a look at the results. They may surprise you. If the model results are good, then do some polling to figure out if those you hope to benefit from your proposal understand or want it. Those results may surprise you, as well.

On the working and useful part, for economics I’d consider some recommendations, with policy proposals for dealing with inequality, for dealing with climate change, for ending the consumer society, etc. as signs of working and useful. For physics, recommendations and policies for dealing with climate change, nuclear proliferation, new designs for renewable energy, etc.

Me:  Ok.  From my book:
A $1000/mo. universal dividend paired with the 50% Discount/Rebate policy immediately guarantees everyone 18 and older $24,000/yr. of potential purchasing power whether they are employed or not.

The dividend for married couples with at least one child is $1500/mo. each or $36,000/yr. apiece or $72,000/yr.

Of course if anyone gets a job their purchasing power from any employment is also doubled.

An 18 year old student with a $9/hr 16hr/wk Wal Mart job would then have monthly purchasing power of $3152/mo or $37,824/yr.

A couple with a child with 2 full time Wal Mart jobs would have purchasing power of $11760/mo or $141,120/yr.

A married couple with one child and one income of $40,000/yr would have potential purchasing power of $152,000/yr.

The wealthy’s income from both the dividend and the doubling of their earned income will increase their purchasing power as well so technically inequality isn’t addressed, but as everyone’s income will be abundant instead of scarce or non-existent….who cares. Envy is a personal vice, gratitude is a stellar virtue and such a graciously abundant system would help to support, habituate and self actualize the latter….and the system  would be free flowing as well.

Climate change:

Creating a publicly administered non-profit monetary and financial system would:

Forever end cost as a factor for slowing or denying necessary products, projects and new research that would deal with climate change

With the second 50% Discount/Rebate policy at the point of note signing a $30,000 solar panel purchase would cost only $7500 which with a 0% loan for 2 years would be $312.50/mo.
A $40,000 autonoumous battery powered car would be $10,000 with a 3 year 0% loan would be $277.78/mo.

With inflation forever ending from the dividend and Discount/Rebate policies and unemployment no longer a deleterious factor the government could allocate whatever funds it saw fit for any of the huge projects needed to reduce carbon foot print. Re-industrialization of the nation even in the most efficient and ecologically sane way possible would actually increase employment and keep the economy robust and stable and reverse the failed and destabilizing globally financialized economy.

Ending consumer economy

Creating an economy philosophically and policy-wise based on grace invites the many virtuous aspects of that concept.

I suggest a nationally coordinated cooperative effort between the clergy, helping/therapeutic professions and the government to acculturate such virtuous traits and helping people to expand their awareness and appreciation of the vast set of positive, constructive purposes available to them in addition to employment with the monetarily abundant economy.

There are numerous additional policy suggestions and capabilities in my book that the new monetary paradigm would enable.

KZ:  Craig,

“Morning always promises miracles.”
― Sinclair Lewis, Elmer Gantry

I wouldn’t want your clients to put you into the Elmer Gantry role.

Me:   Cynicism is irrelevant regarding survival, and an historically verifiable indication that one is on the wrong side of a paradigm change. Craig 08/08/2019

KZ:  Craig, the last thing my remarks are about is cynicism. I speak from experience. Just one instance. I negotiated a $55 million rate decrease for some Texas utility customers. On the witness stand I was pilloried by the AG and Citizens’ Counsel for giving too little of the money to low usage customers. Both disagreed with my whole strategy and made that clear by bashing me. Just saying, we don’t always get what we think we deserve.

Me:  Cynicism grows out of negative experience. I’m not saying it is pleasant or that it is anything but a mental challenge to overcome. Neither am I naive about the hold that ideologies have over people’s minds. There are probably nearly as many stupid (read extreme) liberals as there are stupid conservatives/libertarians. Did you get the decrease and did it benefit everyone? That is what is important. And paradighmatically, is it conscious of how the paradigm of monetary scarcity/austerity is overcome with abundantly direct and reciprocal monetary gifting? Recognizing the benefits and necessity of a new pattern is personally 90% of the battle won. Consciousness raising is difficult in humans because of the subtleties of consciousness itself, but the efficacy of a genuinely new pattern gets learned most rapidly by doing-living and in so doing the old way of thinking dies a rather rapid death. You know that. It’s the power and process of culture.


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