Me:  Alonso,

Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting refers to the actions taking place at the point of retail sale and also at the point of note/loan signing. The merchant gifts the consumer at that point with a 50% discount to their best competitive price for every one of their goods and/or services. That’s the direct part. The reciprocal part is the monetary authority rebating the entirety of the discounted amount back to the merchant so that they can be whole on their margins and overheads. The result is a 100% increase in the individual’s purchasing power, in other words they can now purchase $100 worth of goods and services….for $50, and a $300k home for $150k, and then at note signing the (now national non-profit bank) gifts/discounts the note 50% so every commercial agent is made whole and the consumer purchases the $300k house for $75k.

Historically, the actual operations of paradigm changes have always been elemental, simple and conceptually and temporally inverting of the old/present paradigm for instance nomadic life to homesteading and urbanization. The direct and reciprocal operations at retail sale and at note signing become Debt Only vs Monetary Gifting.

The discount/rebate also aligns with and is seamlessly implemented via the debit-credit nature of double entry bookkeeping/accounting. This is the most basic and powerful nature of the monetary paradigm (accounting) and thus enables huge benefits and a wide variety of policy options that economists say they would like to see occur like lowering the costs of high tech economies, increasing individual income/purchasing power, combatting/eliminating inflation and the incentivizing of ecologically sane economics. Steve Keen, whose de-bunking of DSGE (Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium) is a thorough theoretical work, has since been inching toward realizing the power and significance of accounting in economic theory. He has also called for a new paradigm in economics. The one thing he’s missing is an awareness of the new paradigm concept of Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting and how it fits into the accounting infrastructure that the entirety of the economy is sanely and inextricably embedded in.

The rest of the policies I advocate align with the new monetary paradigm.

DT:  It seems Douglas had got as far as Ed Zimmer and I in seeing two economies, whereas Keynes saw not the circulation of money within the second (FIRE) economy but what I’ve seen and Douglas sought to avoid: it overflowing into unconstrained chrematism (money making). Keynes didn’t say Douglas was wrong: he merely belittled him as a private rather than a major. (Joan Robinson said he always was a tease). Anyway, following Craig back to his primary sources has been rewarding. I found Douglas making sense where Craig’s bowdlerised version doesn’t. But if Craig is not a bot, good for him too, for following Whitehead’s advice to “get hold of the big ideas and hang on to them like grim death”.

Me:  Dave, Far from bowdlerizing social credit theory my innovations take it from a better than neo-liberal but still mere theory…to a paradigm changing set of logically aligned policies.

AK:  I am a bit perplexed about the direct part. If I was the merchant, I would immediately double the “best competitive price” (and that would do all merchants). With the discount the consumer will pay the same price. He looses nothing. But I will get 100% rabat from the monetary authority.
Said another way, if the 50% discount is compulsory and known in advance, then the market price will be negotiated with the discount in mind which makes the discount senseless?
What do I understand wrongly?

Me:  In the first place if a merchant immediately raises his prices by 20+ percent and just one of his wily competitors actually lowers his prices, just how much market share is the anti-social inflating merchant going to lose?, and the road to profit is volume of sales not necessarily profit margin.

Secondly, if everyone’s purchasing power is doubled by the policy and people see the anti-social merchant trying to game the system by eroding their purchasing power is that going to erode that merchant’s good will which is actually the most valuable commodity that any business can have.

Thirdly, if a merchant attempts what you say despite the fact that with the new paradigm he and all of his employees will save because they’ll no longer have to pay transfer taxes for welfare, unemployment or social security because with the $1000/mo. universal dividend that the 50% discount enables you to purchase $2000/mo. ….then who needs or wants to pay for a welfare, unemployment and social security bureaucracy?

Fourth, there will be taxation penalties and ultimately an ending of an enterprise’s rebate privileges if, despite all of the cost savings and income/business revenue in increases, an enterprise continues to inflate without actual cost increases.

Fifth, part of my regulatory program would be to create a new government department named The Department of Competition, Innovation, Boycotting and the Bully Pulpit which will encourage the first two aspects and publicly and very loudly point the finger at anti-social enterprise and also help to organize boycotts of their products and services. Hoist a few corporate heads and their businesses on a pike with this program and you’d likely begin to see rational and healthy appreciation for the benefits of the new paradigm rather than greedy and anti-social idiocy.

Finally, the idea that we have free markets is foolishness. All markets are manipulated and the money market is dominated by the private for profit banks with their monopolistic paradigm of Debt Only which is not only one of the stupidest realities we have endured for over 5000 years it is a glaring contradiction to the acolytes of “free” markets as well, so that critique by them is meaningless and we need mostly ignore it while communicating how beneficial the new paradigm is for every economic agent individual and commercial…..so long as they remain ethical and appropriately appreciative.