DT:  Craig, Norman not being able to distinguish between a panacea (universal medicine) and rebuilding from the foundations up doesn’t unfortunately make your panacea paradigmatic. You haven’t defined what you mean by money, and paradigm change is about reinterpreting what we can already see.

Norman is wrong in thinking economics has a quantification issue, when actually it is where the money is going. You propose dealing with the quantification issue by giving half of it back. Half of what? The debt?

If you reexamine what money is, one finds it has long been Ponzi money: the banks making their profits by selling or renting out non-existent gold and people down the line paying for it with real goods. The banks have lent nothing, so there is no debt to give back. And you are proposing to give nothing? All the banks really do is acknowledge our credit-worthiness.

If you were to understand giving money as giving credit where credit is due, then that is a paradigmatic change with which I could agree. It points to spending our own credit rather than the banks’ (i.e. to credit card finance paid back by doing good with it) as the practical solution you are seeking. Our savings are worth nothing, but up our credit limit. If we don’t do good with what we buy with them they will gradually disappear.

Me:  DT,

Nonsense. I know money and I know what paradigms are and their effects. Money is most basically and importantly accounting, and the current monetary paradigm is Debt Only. That is, virtually all of it is created as only a debt obligation despite the fact such monopolistic nature de-stabilizes the macro-economy with debt deflation. All of the other characteristics of money pale to insignificance by comparison, and utilizing the direct and reciprocal, +,- infrastructure of accounting at retail sale enables the control, direction and benefits of money/credit more than a zillion off target monetary or economic blabberings will ever do.

It’s exactly like I have said on here a hundred times. Pundits talk all around money and whore after the complexities of the economy when the elemental and deep simplicities which are the keys to perceiving and executing paradigms are what is needed.