DT:   Craig, I sometimes wonder if you can read! I outline the argument for credit cards as a paradigm for giving people “money” when they need it, paid for by their earning it, and you come back saying “Nobody has suggested a program nearly as comprehensive and immediately effective as my new monetary and financial paradigm”!

So you want us to give back money to those who already have too much, but not to penniless producers turned off their land so trees can be chopped down to grow stuff for beef-burgers and margerine?

It seems you have never thought about Malthus’ problem, never mind our current need for self-imposed austerity in both consumption and reproduction (i.e. overall birthrates), hence the need for local control information and global mobilisation of tree-replanters. But are you SEEING what I am saying, or as usual just LISTENING to yourself?

Me:   Dave, a credit card is not a monetary gift, it is a DEBT….and that places you unmistakably in the private banker’s mindset and paradigm of DEBT ONLY as in a monopoly paradigm. The monopolistic onlyness, especially in supposedly COMPETITIVE free enterprise economic systems, is precisely what is problematic and wrong. Comprende?

The Adamic curse was lifted over 2000 years ago. It’s time we applied it to the economy and money system. Or does it not apply there?

Now if you’re an entrepreneur or business person and you want or need to increase your production, or a home buyer the national publicly administered non-profit banking system will be happy to create and LEND you the required funds…at o%…unless you’re a hard core pornographer or drug king pin or something….then you’ll have to go to the private financiers with someone’s already created and saved profits or incomes and they’ll intermediate your project at a rate of interest that I’m sure would be a “deal”.

“So you want us to give back money to those who already have too much,”

Of course of those who have much, much is required, but the politics of envy are largely irrelevant….and old paradigm as well.

“but not to penniless producers”

Not relevant critique. As I showed Ken, my program of a dividend and a job guarantee enables his homeless Portlander to have over $52k worth of purchasing power per year. Solidly middle class for an individual.

“turned off their land so trees can be chopped down to grow stuff for beef-burgers and margerine?”

A sovereign, and under the new paradigm’s policies an obviously benevolent government, people will not be extortable and having knowledge of their prior oppression will undoubtedly be sensitive to the caprices of commercial interests who also being under the gracious but sovereign purview of the government, will not have free reign to exploit.

“It seems you have never thought about Malthus’ problem, never mind our current need for self-imposed austerity in both consumption and reproduction (i.e. overall birthrates), hence the need for local control information and global mobilisation of tree-replanters. But are you SEEING what I am saying, or as usual just LISTENING to yourself?”

Doubling purchasing power does not equate with a doubling of commodity consumption.

Select additional subsidization of green consumer products and the enabling of funding for the mega projects necessary for ecological survival…are a primary part of my program and end the idiocy of such being “too costly” under the current financial paradigm of Debt Only.

I’m sure there’s a gracious integration of population control within ecological survival…but it won’t have any possibility of enactment unless we awaken to the new monetary and financial paradigm FIRST. The new zeitgeist is grace and the current zeitgeist is power. So maybe you should figure out what that means.