JD:  I would like to ask a very sincere question, if you don’t mind. I am not a professional economist, so I really don’t know the answer. Why don’t economists start by saying what the purpose of an economy (or “the economy”) is and then analyze what is happening in relation to that?

Me:  I’ll answer that in the most basic and potentially insightful way, as basics/elementals are always insightful.

The purpose of economic production is consumption.

And a 50% Discount/Rebate monetary policy at the point of retail sale facilitates a free flowing economy by doubling everyone’s earned income purchasing power, doubling the actually available individual income/business revenue for any and all enterprises and just as a kicker not only completely eliminates any possibility of price and asset inflation, but by so integratively inverting the reality of chronic inflation to beneficial price deflation…fulfills one (and all) of the historically verifiable signatures of paradigm changes.

Look at that. Don’t just gloss over it. Its effects are mathematical, empirical, temporal and almost un-gameable (and virtually so with philosophically aligned tax and economic regulations). And when everyone (immediately) realizes how nice it is that their income/revenue is mathematically doubled and economic stability is bulwarked, another of the signatures of paradigm changes will take effect. That is, everything adapts and moves on to the new paradigm….not the other way around….because its so obviously beneficial to every economic agent and to the system.

The operations of paradigm changes are always basically simple and yet always transformational to the pattern it relates to.

We should be focusing on the new paradigm, its problem resolving aspects and building a mass movement to herd the political apparatus toward its implementation, not endlessly affirming already agreed upon theories and policy parts of the paradigm change.

C’mon.

JD:  If we take your purpose statement as a starting point, and I think it’s a pretty good one, economic analysis probably should begin by looking at how well and how efficiently an existing system actually serves people’s material needs, right? Why, then, don’t economists do that?

Me:  That’s because they are largely off in some abstraction ONLY looking for the answer when they should be integrating both abstract and direct observation. And that’s the heterodox ones. The orthodox ones are simply way inured to their orthodoxy, concerned with career more than the search for truth, afraid to risk criticism and/or numerous other factors none of which is the wisdom of integrative thinking, and thinking on the paradigmatic level which is the quintessential integrative mental and temporal level of thought and observation as it is the integration of simple and complex, singular concept and pluralistic pattern effect.