Me: There is a difference between money itself and the monetary paradigm. Money is a facile, fungible and so excellent tool. The monetary paradigm (as are all paradigms) is a pattern, a cultural phenomenon, and a problematic paradigm that is ripe for changing is always exclusionary and monopolistic. It’s Nomadic Existence Only, Terra-Centrism Only, Sacraments Via The Church Only, Hand Written Communications Only, Physical Storage of Information Only and Debt Only.
If economists and pundits do not analyze money and its effects on the economy from a paradigmatic perspective, THEY MISS THE TRUE MARK AND THEIR ANALYSIS WILL NECESSARILY BE FRAGMENTED AND SHALLOW.
DT: If Craig will get his head round the idea that what looks like debt to a seller is credit needed by the buyer, then I will disagree with him only to extent of having local rather than central banks keep the accounts of our credit-worthiness, forwarding for government attention only environmentally significant imbalances.
Me: Dave, I have no problem with Debt itself. It’s the monopolistic paradigm of Debt ONLY along with the common sense understanding that the power that money bestows, guarantees the continual build up of debt and thus debt deflation….that is the problem.
Private creation of money is not a legitimate economic business model because it adds cost post retail sale, and is also a felonious means of domination. Money creation is a legitimate and necessary power of government. It IS true that the power to create money, especially in the form of Debt ONLY, is problematic whether done by private banks or a national banking and financial system….unless of course that money creation is aligned with and firmly guided by the new monetary paradigm of Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting. Grace/graciousness unites and resolves whatever it touches.
Me: DT: “Craig, you argue that “Private creation of money is” wrong because “Money creation is a legitimate and necessary power of government.”
Actually I said private creation of money is wrong because it adds cost post retail sale. And the reason is because that point is currently the end of the entire legitimate economic/productive process. It is the unconscious knuckling under to the paradigm of Debt Only to legitimize such private financialization past that point.
Furthermore, as I have been posting here for years the new paradigm of Gifting fits legitimately within the current end of the economic/productive process (retail sale) and the second 50% discount at the point of note/loan signing would legitimately extend it to that further point. Systems were made for man, not man for systems.
DT: “I would say you are thinking of banks and governments as “corporate persons” whereas I see them as real people doing a job and having a right to be paid for it, or if paid, a duty to perform their job.”
Most of those currently employed in finance would be able to work for the new national banking and financial system if they chose to do so. Culturally hide bound theorists undoubtedly complained that the Gutenberg Press would put monks out of work and make them all indolent. Everyone one benefits from a paradigm change. Historically it’s one of the reasons that everyone and everything adapts to a new paradigm, not the other way around.
The policies of monetary gifting are a gigantic assist to the economy and a resolution of the real reason profit making economic systems are failing, namely ever increasing systemic Debt service costs. That’s why the US shipped production to China and will continue to do so to Burkina Faso and ultimately robotically to the moon if it suits the purpose of Finance’s monopolistic paradigm.
Those monks had more time to proselytize and self actualize grace as in love in action, and with an ounce of the self actualized wisdom of the natural philosophical concept of grace becoming a continual part of the temporal universe via the economic process numerous times per day who knows the beneficial effects on homo economicus?