Me: You’re absolutely spot on about the need to inject more money into the economy. The best way to do that would be a 50% discount to every consumer product from a package of chewing gum to autos and homes.
Then mandate that the FED or any other monetary authority like the US Treasury rebate every cent of the 50% discount back to the merchant giving the discount. This would simultaneously double every working individual’s purchasing power (and the purchasing power of a universal dividend as well) and forever end inflation as normal garden variety inflation is never more than 1-3% and the highest it has ever (temporarily) been was 14.5% during a war and or a huge cost increase like the oil embargo in the 70’s.
You could also prevent anti-social business decision makers from raising their prices higher than normal by taxing any income they may (or may not) garner from doing so at a rate of 100%.
I like your persistence and focus on these matters. Hopefully the present crisis awakens people to the efficacy and necessity of monetary sovereignty and the new monetary paradigm of Abundantly Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Grace as in Gifting.
RMM: I’m not sure how the mechanics would work, but it’s an interesting concept. I’m more in the “helicopter money” school.
Me: It would actually be a rather simple debit/credit accounting procedure where retailers would open a sales account labeled total discounts with a debit balance for all sales and the monetary authority would credit them that amount.
It doubles the purchasing power of both “helicopter money” and earned income. Plus, again it will utterly end inflation.
Economists worry about “monetary” inflation which is a misnomer actually because the money is at best a tertiary cause of inflation. It’s actually as you have observed scarcity, a chronic systemic scarcity of money that tempts corporate decision-makers to commit the economic sin of price inflation. Why?
Because they are aware of the chronic system-wide scarcity of demand so that when they perceive more money coming into the economy they inflate in order to attempt to garner more business revenue.
The 50% retail discount/rebate ends the scarcity reality and ironically stabilizes the economy with twice the demand and yet actual price deflation.
RMM: I misunderstood to think your suggestion was that the money first would go to the buyer. But, I see you meant the money first would go to the seller. True?
You might wish to examine motivation. That is, if the money goes directly to the seller, what is his price motivation and compared to the buyer’s motivation if the money goes directly to him.
In the latter case, we have mini-versions in case of coupons and credit card rebates. There, I suspect the motivation is to spend.
But in the former case, where the dollars go first to the seller, what is he motivated to do?
I would be interested in your thoughts on this.
Me: My thinking is that the 50% discount is “an offer that the retailers cannot refuse” and hence means you’d get virtually 100% participation in the policy because if they opt out they’d have to get 100% of their best competitive price while their competition only would need to get 50% so it’s a no brainer to opt in.
The universal dividend is a necessary direct gift to the individual and its purchasing power is doubled by the 50% discount. I’m not that concerned with over production so much because doubling purchasing power doesn’t automatically translate into a doubling of economic throughput. In other words everyone is not going to go out and buy twice as many socks and underwear or eat twice as much food as they did before.
The 50% discount/rebate is good for enterprise and for the individual, for management and labor. That means it would be politically integrative of traditionally opposed political constituencies. It’s not so much legitimate business models that are the problem, but the illegitimate business model of finance as money creator and monopolistic paradigm enforcer of Debt Only as the sole form and vehicle for the distribution of credit/money.
And as I said in my other post if anti-social business decision-makers want to inflate or game a universally beneficial system then tax the shit out of them. Also, in my book I suggest a new department of Innovation, Competition, Boycotting and The Bully Pulpit that would encourage the first two economic virtues, help to organize the third against recalcitrant gamers and have its department head get up and expose those who arbitrarily inflating by saying: The new system more than doubled your purchasing power and corporation x, y and z are trying to erode it. What are you going to do about that?
The beauty of the 50% discount policy is that it could be used to finally get us off the dime toward sane ecological/industrial policies. In my book, I suggest a second 50% discount/jubilee policy for all green consumer products and big-ticket items at the point of loan closing. So $40k worth of solar panels would become $20k at retail sale and $10k at loan closing. Likewise, a $300k home with the best energy-efficient options becomes $150k at sale and $75k at loan closing. A $50k electric vehicle becomes $25k at sale and $12.5k at loan closing. Finally, if we don’t have to worry about inflation because of the 50% discount at retail we could also be free to do huge top-down fiscal deficits for infrastructure and the mega projects that will be necessary to survive climate change.
RMM: Perhaps your thinking already has gelled on this idea, but if not, let me assist you:
Why 50% rather than some other %?
How long would you maintain this program? Forever? Just to cure recessions?
Only for 100% domestic retailers? What about importers? Exporters? Assemblers? Wholesalers? Distributors? (Think new and used automobiles. Who gets paid?)
Any limits on what can be done with the money? (i.e. buy stock vs. pay salaries? Invest domestically vs. overseas?)
Me: “Why 50% rather than some other %?”
It’s a nice round number that the general populace can understand, and immediately makes up for the erosion of purchasing power the 95% have experienced over the last 40 years. I’m maleable on the percentage (mostly on the upper side, for instance, even if we have “normal” inflation of 1-3% with the regulations I suggest then we just make the discount 51-53% and so no erosion of purchasing power)
“How long would you maintain this program? Forever? Just to cure recessions?”
Basically yes. Eventually, if it started to contribute to excessive consumption or proflicacy concerning price you could call a temporary moratorium on it. The concept behind the new paradigm is grace as in love in action/policy. The natural philosophical concept of grace in all of its universally applicable to life and living aspects is the key concept behind all of the world’s major wisdom traditions, and self actualizing them would be a giant step forward toward the maturation of humanity.
“Only for 100% domestic retailers? What about importers? Exporters? Assemblers? Wholesalers? Distributors? (Think new and used automobiles. Who gets paid?)
There would be no discount to exporters. They would have to hope for the discount/rebate policy to be implemented in whatever country they export to. For the moment importers would enjoy the discount/rebate, but the universal dividend and the cost cutting and tax savings aspect enabled by the discount/rebate would enable us to re-industrialize the nation in the most efficient and ecologically sane way possible.
And that would push export platform countries like China and Germany toward the same policies and the kind of robust subsidiarity a national economy needs….instead of the uber financialized wet nightmare we presently are moving toward.
Business models prior to retail will benefit from the both the additional demand which would translate into greater revenue and the cost savings these policies would bring (for instance, with a sufficient universal dividend and 50% discount/rebate insuring a relatively abundant and dignified income for life all transfer taxes paid by both employees and employers for welfare, unemployment insurance and even social security would become redundant and could be eliminated. You could either phase social security out or give people the option of getting a bulk distribution of what they have paid into it.
I believe that private for-profit banking must be resigned to the dust bin of history. A publicly administered non-profit national banking system would replace it.
Speculation on actually productive purposes and to ensure innovation and competition would still be allowed although firmly regulated (no more derivative nonsense and other purely financialized casino capitalist idiocies like naked shorting of currencies).
There would be no discount for hardcore pornography. The discount would apply to pump prices but could be phased out as the second 50% discount/jubilee policy at note signing for EVs and solar panels etc. reduced much of the market for petroleum.
The non-profit national banking system would still be on the lookout for malinvestment, and again while reasonable speculative leveraging would be possible if it was for actually productive purposes and aligned with the new paradigm concept there would craziness like the present. Let the gamblers/speculators use their own money to invest without leverage.
That way there’s no question about who’s on the hook when a bet goes bad.
RMM: You might consider taking the arbitrary or moral considerations out of it. (” . . . actually productive purposes . . . “, ” . . . hardcore pornography,” ” . . . reasonable speculative leveraging . . .” ” . . . actually productive purposes . . .”) Consider what a dictator would do with those options.
Before the crash, GDP was about $22 Trillion. Your program would invest about $10 Trillion a year in federal deficit spending. What about education and healthcare? How would they fit in?
Me: Yes, there’s always the possibility that a demagogue like Trump would corupt such phrases even though by “actualy productive” I meant simply non-financial, but such stupidity is a posibility anyway. There would be no atempt to ban hardcore pornography, but it wouldn’t be subsidized either. The same for alcohol, tobacco products and marijuana. They’re all fine as consumer products, but subsidized, I don’t think so.
The human world is by nature of human self-awareness an ethical world. (Ethical as in ethics is the rational consideration of morals.) Pre-scientific dogmas will remain, but hopefully, they increasingly are looked at as mandalas to facilitate self-actualization of virtues and the many applicable aspects of grace as in love in action/policy.
The discount/rebate policy would reduce the retail cost of premiums for all forms of insurance and the dividend would make paying for those premiums easier. I have no doubt that a publicly administered single-payer system would be cheaper and better than the mess we have now, but paying for it with re-distributive taxation when a fiat monetary system that increases everyone’s income and transforms chronic price inflation into beneficial price deflation is available is stupid IMO.
Having said this it’s obvious that the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries have been exceptionally inflationary price gougers for decades and that truth would be addressed co-equally and co-immediately with that of private for-profit finance’s illegitimate money creation and monopoly paradigm powers. And if they do not “grok” the new paradigm concept of monetary gifting and both do not honestly confront their history of inflation and continue to inflate they are obvious candidates for a national non-profit system.
Higher education has become a large source of inflation ever since the government-guaranteed student loans and that would have to end even if some academics and institutions have to take pay cuts. As tuition is the retail product of education the 50% discount would go a long way toward making education affordable for students, and it would increase academics’ purchasing power even if they needed to take a pay cut.