KZ: Many believe Keynes insists that the state must be the ultimate protector of the public good by changing and regulating markets. Keynes never says markets are always or even mostly unfair or unequal. Which makes me ask, does Keynes place conditions on the state’s role as the ultimate protector of the public good? For example, today does the state have an obligation to protect the public good and the vast majority of the populace that depend on it from the behavior of financial markets that threaten it and is that obligation absolute? Which brings up, for me this related question. Does the state have an absolute obligation to protect the integrity of democratic government, even to the point of destroying large corporations and/or members of the super-rich that attack it? I realize present economists shy away from such questions. But for those who are not members of the elites the answers to these questions are vital.
Me: Of course they have the obligation to protect the integrity of democratic government, and they don’t need to destroy large corporations and/or members of the super rich. They just need to create a stable, free flowing and integral economy with a new monetary paradigm…..and make damn good and sure that the aforementioned abide by the rules and regulations that will keep it from being gamed.
Think about it for a moment Ken, what is your best guess as to what the current monetary paradigm is?
KZ: Craig, so all we need to control greed, powerful billionaires, and Facebook is a new monetary paradigm? Even today’s messed up news coverage seems to indicate that’s not going to work. You’re not likely to get beyond the PR machines.
As to Keynes and protecting democracy can you point me to something he wrote or said that confirms his commitment?
Me: Just do the math and start a mass movement with those realities Ken. The mass of individuals’ minds aren’t cluttered with all of the abstractions and lesser theories about what the problem and the solution is as virtually everyone here.
I never said Keynes said government had that obligation, I said we as the state had it. Keynes was really just a smart speculator and opportunist who both plagiarized and palliated his contemporary C. H. Douglas whose mere theory at least aligned with the then (and nascent-ly still now) concept of the new monetary paradigm. Keynes’ theory was the fall back position of Finance after the Great Depression. And of course both of them died before Kuhn made us all aware of the concept of a paradigm.
I repeat (and answer) my question to you. What is your best guess as to what the current monetary paradigm/pattern is?
A little hint. As every cent of it (even that which comprises the government deficit) is debt…..how can it be anything other than DEBT ONLY?????
Me: Yes the math is beneficial for both individuals and enterprise. The both/and part of that sentence is what is the most important part of it. It indicates an integration/synthesis and means it is aligned with the natural philosophical/ethical concept of grace which is the pinnacle UNITARY concept behind every one of the world’s major wisdom traditions.
I disagree that the politics is bad. It’s true that our politics and soon our social fabric are insanely polarized, but there’s a Japanese word that escapes me presently that can be translated as BOTH crisis AND opportunity. It’s just that you have to discover and communicate an actual answer that is in the integrative/mutual interest of BOTH the individual AND enterprise….like the new monetary paradigm of Gifting for instance.
Monetary Gifting directly to the individual with a universal dividend and BOTH directly AND reciprocally implemented at the strategic point of retail sale with a 50% discount/rebate monetary policy is the way to rationally, effectively, ethically and stably create and maintain a truly fiat money system.
“The legal system would be turned over. As would the foundations of most moral systems and religions.”
The legal system and religious systems wouldn’t be destroyed as much as integratively transformed. The legal by a better focus (dynamic focus being an aspect of grace) on fact and relevance of issue, and our moral and religious systems would be re-focused on direct self actualized grace as in love in action as opposed to only Faith In their various dogmas, that is, the once removed from self actualization merely abstract religious mental stance.
Social Credit/Wisdomics/Gracenomics/ Gracientialism 