Me: Apparently no one here except myself has the guts to suggest specific policies that would change neo-classical economics into something not only better but a thirdness greater oneness. In fact almost no one will even engage me on the efficacy of such. So I’m the only one here who practices BOTH philosophy AND methodology/policy. We never resolve problems by merely talking. Indeed it does take talking and acting, philosophy and policy. And not just palliative and piecemeal reforms like we’ve always done before, but pattern change.
If someone can show me a better and more resolving new pattern than Monetary Gifting. I’ll back them 100%.
Y: Craig, it is not the question of guts. The problem is concerned with a discipline called economics. Without a good theory, a bold economic policy is a kind of gambles. It is normal that few people want to bet on your policy.that would change the world.
What is needed in reconstructing economics is a good insight, perseverance, and reasons.
Me: “What is needed in reconstructing economics is a good insight, perseverance, and reasons.”
Indeed, a good insight and reasons like the fact that money is basically accounting, that it thus must obey the conventions of accounting like equal debits and credits must sum to zero, that retail sale is the terminal systemic ending point, thus the terminal cost and price summing point for every consumer item or service (and of all prior capital costs as well) and thus a 50% discount/rebate policy at that point is a way to immediately end individual income scarcity, business revenue scarcity and so systemic austerity….which every heterodox economist says is at the root of the problem. This is not to mention the numerous other beneficial effects and problem resolving potentialities that become doable with such a policy going into effect.
Do the math! And the insights will follow.
IK: Should I understand “a 50% discount/rebate policy at the retail point” as a negative VAT (Value Added Tax) or negative GST (Good and Services Tax)?It is tempting to understand it as such without further details. If it is such how does Government financing work under such a regime? If it is not such who pays the discount/rebate?Instead of saying “Do the math!” give us examples of the math. If I buy an item for $100 sticker-price then I get $50 back. Correct? Then I can buy an item for $50 and get $25 back. Then I can buy an item for $25 and get $12.50 back. And then so on. It’s a little like Zeno’s paradox as I approach the point of getting $200 worth of goods (at sticker-prices) for $100. Rounding errors and a cut-off of minimum purchase price will stop me from getting quite to $200 and thus terminate the “paradox”.Or have I completely misconstrued this? But logically speaking, the government is the only party with any “incentive” or rather with the remit and capacity to offer the discount/rebate. It’s also the only way I can see that the books (national accounts and business accounts) would balance.This discount/rebate policy would have to be paid for (in national account balancing terms) by any or all of
government money printing, government money borrowing or government revenue collection from other sources.The thing is that the stimulus of the discount/rebate system (if set in stone at 50%) is on its own a massive blunt and inflexible instrument. Or again, have I completely misconstrued all this?
Me: I would prefer that the 50% discount was reduced at retail because its immediately beneficial to the individual, but it could be administered the other way around.Every penny of the discount would be created and rebated back to the enterprise giving it, by the monetary authority. That authority could be the FED in the USA, or some other national authority mandated to do so.Example: Individual goes to the grocery store who has agreed to opt into the 50% discount/rebate policy and its rules. He/she buys $100 worth of goods and pays $50. The enterprise debits $50 to retail sales account and the monetary authority credits the account with $50. The individual’s purchasing power is doubled and the free and clear revenue available for the enterprise’s goods and/or services is also (potentially) doubled. All costs including profit and taxes are paid in full.Example of 50% discount/rebate policy applied at both retail sale and at the point of note signing for a green electric automobile: The individual goes to the dealer and the $50k out the door costs including taxes on the EV is reduced to $25k at retail sale. Then, assuming creditability, the note (IMO best owed to the truly national publicly administered non-profit banking system) is reduced by 50% to $12.5k at 0% interest. (With the non-profit banking system the amount is simply written off and no interest is needed. With a for profit bank the monetary authority would simply credit the bank for the $12.5k and the individual would have to pay interest on the note.Finance is necessary and doable for costly high tech economies to survive, but for-profit finance violates the “sanctity” so to speak of retail sale being the ending point for costs and the point where production becomes consumption (consumption is where any good or service LEAVES the economy and no one and no commercial entity has the right to charge one further costs other than the total financed, monthly for an agreed upon period without interest until paid off).The 50% discounts ARE blunt instruments. Beneficial blunt instruments, and everything is accounted for. In the case of the second 50% discount at note signing, with the non-profit system the money is completely accounted for, but 50% of the total is simply destroyed with the debit-credit convention of double entry bookkeeping. No fuss, no harm.
Now I understand your proposal a bit better although far from completely. In the first instance, I would say it runs the risk of creating a great deal of goods and services inflation. Ceteris paribus (all other things being equal), my purchasing power, and that of all consumers, is doubled. The participating retailer know this and also has a huge competitive advantage over non-participating retailers, if any. In the absence of price controls (usually considered anathema), the retailer will raise the price of all goods and services, perhaps even doubling them to match the discount/rebate.
However, matters will not be ceteris paribus (other things will not be equal) as you envisage, so far as I can tell, the non-creation of credit money in the whole of the system. There will be no credit-money (or no debt-money if we look at it that way). I will no longer take a personal loan, for example, to buy a car for personal, not business, use. (I wouldn’t do that anyway as I would regard that as foolish but this is just an example). Instead of say taking a $25,000 loan to buy a $50,000 car, I would simply save the $25,000 and the “non-loan” or subsidy to buy the car.
There is now no credit-debt money in the system. The government is now taxing and/or printing money to fund the rebate. I will assume government borrowing of credit-debt money is also removed from the system. This would be consistent with the vision. The inflationary push of credit-debt money is removed so this is deflationary. It is replaced by (likely) government money creation simpliciter (purely and simply). Ideologically and ethically I like this aspect of the idea.
However, will it work in practice? That is the question. Firstly, would removal of the creation of credit-debt money be balanced, at least roughly, by the discount/rebate? Well, perhaps it could be IF the discount/rebate rate is set at the correct percentage to balance the removal of all credit-debt money from the system. However, the economy is not a stationary target so all settings in it are not stationary targets. The economy is a dynamic target.
Even if total flows (of money) are not changed, it matters what channels the flows follow and where the flows can be considered to commence and terminate (or where parts of the total flows can be considered to commence and terminate since much of the flows are circular with positive and negative feed-backs).
What I am saying here is at the very least you can expect a massive transition shock. That’s the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is perhaps hyperinflation an/or completely haywire and unpredictable perturbations and gyrations through all markets.
I actually do not know if there is a workable kernel to your idea. However, I do know, to a high degree of probability, that such a radical change would require a staged and lengthy social and economic-financial transition. The current economy is a ravening consumption drug-addict and credit-debt money is the drug. Expect acute withdrawal (and likely collapse and mega-deaths) if you perform a cold turkey cure on this system.
This suggests a staged withdrawal approach with empirical checks along the way. Credit-debt money cold turkey withdrawal would never fly politically anyway. The credit-debt money system will have to be defeated by an incremental “death of a thousand cuts” at the same time as we seek a non-quantitative growth circular economy to meet ecological and climate change dangers. It’s a big ask. I don’t think we have time left to turn this “supertanker” (the world economy) around. I think quite frankly our doom is already sealed. But we should try what we can.
Me: “I would say it runs the risk of creating a great deal of goods and services inflation.”
If a retailer raises a $1 loaf of bread by 20% and the retail discount is 50% it becomes $.60. How can that be inflationary? And if the each business model along the way to retail sale is taxed at a rate of 100% for any revenue they may or may not have made on the sale of products to create that loaf (because their competition being happy with the tax savings and revenue boosting effects of the discount policy has actually lowered their prices to $.95/loaf or $.45) how much of the greedy anti-social enterprises’ market share will their competition take from them?
“The participating retailer…”
There won’t be any non-participating retailers. If you have to get 100% of your best competitive price from the consumer alone and your competition only has to get 50%….you can’t compete and you’ll go out of business.
“There is now no credit-debt money in the system.”
The government is now taxing and/or printing money to fund the rebate.
Creating it ex-nihilo. Taxes will actually be able to be greatly reduced in a directly distributive monetary system.
“I will assume government borrowing of credit-debt money is also removed from the system. This would be consistent with the vision.”
It will not borrow any money, simply create and directly distribute non-debt money in the forms of the universal dividend, the rebate monies and any government spending. The national non-profit banking and financial system will create loans for credit worthy borrowers who have legitimate purposes for wanting and needing it.
“However, will it work in practice? That is the question. Firstly, would removal of the creation of credit-debt money be balanced, at least roughly, by the discount/rebate? Well, perhaps it could be IF the discount/rebate rate is set at the correct percentage to balance the removal of all credit-debt money from the system.”
There isn’t any actual necessity to balance debt money creation and monetary gifting as the system is now in a continual state of beneficial price deflation. Instead of being thwarted by the assumed to be iron rule inflationary belief in the quantity theory of money, the economy has at least twice as much money circulating in it and greatly reduced prices. A state I refer to as “the higher ethical and universally beneficial monetary disequilibrium.”
“Even if total flows (of money) are not changed, it matters what channels the flows follow and where the flows can be considered to commence and terminate (or where parts of the total flows can be considered to commence and terminate since much of the flows are circular with positive and negative feed-backs).”
That’s how it is now and all will be accounted for under the new paradigm. The difference will be much more profit, prosperity, economic democracy…and sane ecological policy to boot.
“What I am saying here is at the very least you can expect a massive transition shock. That’s the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is perhaps hyperinflation an/or completely haywire and unpredictable perturbations and gyrations through all markets.”
Not necessarily. Of course there will be a period leading up to implementing such a program, but businesses will be warned and be made aware of the fact that if they inflate their prices greatly in the run up period before implementation that they will be taxed at a rate of 100% on any revenue garnered from such anti-social greedy and de-stabilizing actions. That’s why I suggest creation of a new governmental department seriously called The Dept. of Innovation, Competition, Boycotting and The Bully Pulpit which will publicly call out such actions and suggest to consumers that they consider boycotting such enterprises’ products because they are picking the individual’s pocket with such price inflation. The healthy and understandable reaction to anti-social greediness by commercial agents by someone who has been dominated for a long time by a crappy system and its lack of ethics and fair regulation…is anger. That’s one of the reasons we got Trump. And the proper reaction to the universally beneficial policies of Wisdomics-Gracenomics SHOULD BE appreciation. Businesses would need to consider these simple and basic truths…before they acted irresponsibly.
“It’s a big ask. I don’t think we have time left to turn this “supertanker” (the world economy) around.”
“Call me trim tab.” R. Buckminster Fuller
The productive capacity of an economy at any time is limited. That is to say it is not infinite. If the claims on production exceed that capacity some of those claims, when they are exercised, will fail. They will be disappointed. There will either be rationing or a rise in prices until the claims and capacity come into balance. What you cannot seem to acknowledge is that simple fact is true, however the claims come into existence. Repeat: however those claims come into existence. Whether they are the result of credit creation or gifted by a beneficent government they have to be in broad balance with the real economy’s productive potential.
A monopoly of money creation by the government could reduce economic fluctuations caused by a credit cycle. If money is handed out the distribution could also be used to counter income inequality. Granted – people have understood the attractions of the approach. But it cannot abolish the requirement to keep the monetary system and the real economy in balance. You sucked the 50 per cent discount number out of your thumb but you have no idea what the effect would be of doubling the effective income of consumers. Perhaps you can get away with 10 per cent or 20 per cent. You don’t know what the appropriate level is. And nor does anyone else. You don’t have any theory about that or how the rate of monetary issuance should be calibrated. When I asked you once before you told me the answer was grace. She must be quite a girl.
If, as you say, the system ends up with lower prices, yet there is twice as much money circulating we have a problem. money stock x velocity of circulation = prices x transactions. That is not a theory but an identity, something true by definition. More money, continued circulation (ie velocity maintained, no hoarding) and lower prices must mean transactions are up. Fine. when those transactions hit a physical practical limit, something else has to give. There’s nothing in what you write that suggests you even understand the issue, never mind how to deal with it.
You’re entire post is mere flawed orthodoxy regarding the quantity theory of money and the velocity of it circulation, and the present flawed, mistaken and ethically challenged thinking regarding what a free market actually is. And the new monetary and financial paradigm dispels the above.
In the first place most productive facilities do not operate at full capacity so even though we will undoubtedly see an uptick in consumption virtually no one will probably be so panicked by their new relative monetary abundance that they will actually feel they need to eat twice as much food or buy twice as many pairs of underwear. Thus it is a red herring that an increase in money will necessarily cause scarcity of ability to produce and deliver; and as the economic vice of arbitrary and self serving price rises (which are allowed or overlooked in the present mistaken and ethically challenged ideas describing “free markets”) will be taxed severely….as ethically challenged, arbitrary and self serving….none of which are aspects of the natural philosophical concept of grace by the way.
The 50% discount is well conceived because it will utterly resolve the garden variety low single digit form of inflation above described in the above ethically challenged “freedom” in “free” markets, and also because the high percentage discount will give enterprise a sane and personally BENEFICIAL “offer it cannot refuse” because if they have to get 100% of their best price from the consumer and their competition only has to get 50%….how many enterprises are going to opt out of that policy and the additional cost and tax cutting benefits I’ve described here a hundred times????? Also, enterprise will still be free to jack up their prices arbitrarily, but they’ll not only get taxed severely for it, but if their competition abides by the rules and either keeps their prices the same or even cuts them…how much market share is the idiot rule breaking and unappreciative enterprise going to lose?
Finally, hyperinflation never occurs without several prior disastrous events taking place before hand including and most importantly a compliant central bank leveraging up speculators so they can short the currency, and that can be avoided by simply declaring before hand that any such attempt foreign of domestic to do so will be considered null and void.
Finally, finally, even if we’re not able to completely extinguish garden variety low single digit inflation with regulation all we’d need to do is index the discount to inflation by making 51-53% and no harm, no fuss.
There is no freedom in the human temporal universe except amongst barriers, and the pinnacle concept of wisdom and ethics is grace as in love in action/systemic policy. The quicker commercial agents and economic pundits come to accept that the more rational and better off everyone will be and the more gracefully free flowing the economy will continuously be.
DT: Craig hasn’t told us what motivates his “grace”,
Me: “Craig hasn’t told us what motivates his “grace”,
Personal experience of its natural glory, a study of the world’s major wisdom traditions, its logical applicability to the economy and money system, and a study of the signatures of genuine paradigm changes.
I fear that your post confirms that you don’t understand the problem. An identity is an identity and is not altered by altering the means by which one of the variables is generated.
Let’s clear away some points that are not in dispute. It is true that economies do not generally operate absolutely at full capacity. It is also true that an increase in the quantity of money does not necessarily cause an inflation far less a hyperinflation. Those are straw men that no-one is maintaining. The fact remains that a balance between money and real economic capacity has to be maintained. The present system does it very imperfectly. That is also agreed. It is quite unclear (not just to me !) how your proposed system does so. You seem to think there is no risk of political factors leading to an imbalance. And your 50 per cent price subsidy is an example of spurious precision since there is no justification for that particular number.
There is an active group that argues for a government monopoly of money creation including direct transfers to citizens accounts, as you do. It is called “Positive Money” and has attracted support from people like Martin Wolf the Financial Times’ economic commentator. The idea has merits but also difficulties. Apart from the issue of calibrating the money supply, one of the problems is they want private banks to make loans to businesses for investment. Government control of all investments does not have a good track record, after all. But how to stop bank credit creating money automatically? They have a complicated system of trying to separate investment accounts from transactions accounts at banks but it is far from clear that would work. They, though, have tried to address the practical problems with their proposal, which you refuse to do. That is the difference between analysis and faith, I suppose.
Me: “The fact remains that a balance between money and real economic capacity has to be maintained.”
No it doesn’t. That is pure orthodoxy. Presently there is not enough money actually available by 95% of the populace to enable the economy to function well, but way more money sitting around in god knows where and what savings or investment accounts. With the 50% discount/rebate there would be much more than enough of the former and, after perhaps a time of fairly substantially increased consumption (mostly by the poor) consumption would probably level off in a manageable way and savings or investment would undoubtedly increase for virtually all. In the interim there would be no problem with the boogie man of inflation as retail sale is the terminal expression point for inflation….and the discount completely eliminates that possibility. And as I have already posted even if we had its smallish single digit garden variety, despite regulation, we could just index the discount to it, so no big deal.
Steve Keen has destroyed the notion that the economy tends and should tend toward an equilibrium. I’m just showing us how we can have the more prosperous and ethically efficacious monetary disequilibrium.
“But how to stop bank credit creating money automatically?”
By creating a truly national publicly administered non-profit banking and financial system that had strict mandated purposes and regulations, and that was made a fourth branch of government with full arms length separation from the executive and legislative branches. For profit banks could not compete with such, but they would be allowed (within strict sanctions against idiocies like synthetic derivatives and currency shorting etc) to manage already created monies…by the national system.
“They, though, have tried to address the practical problems with their proposal, which you refuse to do. That is the difference between analysis and faith, I suppose.”
Well, as you see above, you suppose wrongly. And I’ve raised these issues and their resolution on here numerous times before in the same straightforward and practical way. Our founding fathers here in America definitely “dropped the ball” on money. The revolution was fought over the the King and the Bank of England banishing the colonies’ various money creating schemes, not over some miniscule tax on tea. And then right afterward implemented a Bank of England system. ?????? So its 224 years overdue to rectify the situation.
Me: “The world is always more complex than our most complex models, even if some our models possess some homomorphic accuracy as truth correspondence in relation to real systems.”
Of course systems are complex, and I have never said that the new monetary paradigm would solve every economic problem, just the biggest, deepest and most urgently needed to be resolved one. Your statement is really nothing more than a refusal to think in terms of paradigm/pattern change which as I have posted before is probably what most bedevils people’s analysis on this blog. Furthermore and what I have also posted here many times before, the key to perceiving and understanding paradigms is simplicity not complexity. Further still a paradigm is an inherently integrative “thing” in that it is a single deep simplicity that fits seamlessly within and transforms an entire complexity/pattern. Money as Debt Only already is utterly integrated into the economy and money as gifting hence will be able to be integrated into the economy as well.
I have also said that despite everything adapting to the new paradigm, which is a signature of a genuine one, that further regulations will be necessary to keep the less than sane and other intentioned from inhibiting its inevitable effects, so yes I have acknowledged that more than suggestion is necessary, namely the other policies and regulations I’ve posted.
“A purist formalist theory of any kind that sets in stone a monetary setting (50% for the discount/rebate) while ignoring real variables of the total real environment of real people, real economy and real ecologies, will be unworkable.”
As I just pointed out I don’t do that. And as I pointed out in prior posts on this thread there is excellent reason for having a numerically high discount percentage because it is then virtually both un-gameable and also so remarkably beneficial for commercial agents….that it becomes a benign “offer they cannot refuse”. It’s also catchier and mathematically simpler to comprehend which will make it easier for the general populace to understand….when and if myself or someone else ever gets a mass movement going to herd the political and economic apparatus toward sanity.
Finally, no one here has even come close to offering an ecologically sane, potentially politically integrative, hence much more doable and bottom up green policy like my second 50% discount/debt jubilee policy at the point of note signing. So that critique doesn’t fit either.
“This is leaving aside any deeper questioning of what is essentially a negative value added tax with concomitant monetary and tax changes.”
No, It’s a universally negative price value subtracted monetary ASSIST with concomitant/rebate and tax changes.
DT: Says Craig: “Your [Iconoclast’s] statement is really nothing more than a refusal to think in terms of paradigm/pattern change which as I have posted before is probably what most bedevils people’s analysis on this blog”.
Not true of me, and at least I understand what is meant by the terms ‘paradigm’ and complexity. Craig is left “hoist by his own petard” by his refusal to consider his proposal not applying to those with no income, and monetary debt jubilees (account settling) only being justified when the real debt (planting and nurturing next year’s corn) has been repaid or become unrepayable (water under the bridge). I find it extraordinary how lucid Craig becomes when putting down other people’s arguments, and how ideological when defending his own. Must be lack of self-education rather than inability.
Craig, try criticising rather than defending your 50% discount policy, starting from my comment above agreeing with you on the importance of grace: October 3, 11:39 am. That may be more literary than lucid, but it seems to cover all the angles.
“Craig is left “hoist by his own petard” by his refusal to consider his proposal not applying to those with no income, and monetary debt jubilees (account settling) only being justified when the real debt (planting and nurturing next year’s corn) has been repaid or become unrepayable (water under the bridge).”
You raised this once before and it doesn’t apply because the 50% discount/rebate isn’t the only monetary gifting policy I’m recommending. There is also a $1000/mo. universal monthly dividend that paired with the 50% discount/rebate guarantees everyone 18 and older $2000/mo. worth of purchasing power. That’s UNIVERSAL, so there’s no adult that is left without monetary support.
As for the debt jubilee, the problem is not only the monetary paradigm of Debt Only, but the negative economic effects of the STILL EXISTING huge debt overhang of private individual and corporate debt. Hence, the debt jubilee is imminently just and economically called for, unless of course one wants to maintain the tremendously unfair and enforced debt slavery we currently have had foisted upon us by the profligate asset inflation in the run up to the Great Financial Recession of 2008.
“I find it extraordinary how lucid Craig becomes when putting down other people’s arguments, and how ideological when defending his own. Must be lack of self-education rather than inability.”
#1 ad hominem
#2 I’ve been giving legitimate economic justifications for my policies in these recent posts not just ideology, and
#3 As I once told Steve Keen, “If there is one thing less accurate than neo-classical macro-economics, it’s long distance anonymous internet psycho-analysis.
#1 not intended. (More praise than calumny).
#2 not (so far as I can see) true.
#3 I’m not anonymous, Craig. I’m not trying to analyse you, more trying to warn you what you look like to me. Nor am I trying to get at you. The title of the famous book by the non-anonymous Thomas D Harris MD is “I’m OK, You’re OK”.
Worth reading what Google throws up about it, but it is readily available via Amazon, exploring why some folk have difficulty moving on.
#2 Well look a little closer because my policy proposals are aligned with, complete and resolve the problematic observations of heterodox economists like Steve Keen, Michael Hudson and MMT.
#3 The word anonymous was perhaps not well chosen. It was meant to refer to you not knowing me personally.
At any rate I mean no harsh critique of you. I think we’re in much closer philosophical agreement than many others on this blog.
GH: Craig’s posts, though, make it clear why Lars Syll’s criticism of models goes too far. If Craig modelled his proposal formally it would be clearer to him and to us what assumptions he was making about behaviour and institutions. It would then be easier to discuss without heat. He would also be obliged to respect accounting identities and ensure his model was coherent. He would know what the factors were that determined whether his subsidy should 10, 50 or 80 per cent. Right now he doesn’t know and doesn’t care. Constructing a model at least has the virtue of enforcing clarity. You wouldn’t want to fly in an aeroplane that hadn’t been modelled and tested in a wind tunnel. (Though you would also want the real thing to be flight-tested too!)
Me: “If Craig modelled his proposal formally it would be clearer to him and to us what assumptions he was making about behaviour and institutions. He would also be obliged to respect accounting identities and ensure his model was coherent.
Unlike almost everyone who is off in abstract calculus formulas that make one’s eyes glaze over or other missing of the actual mark theoretical musings I’m pointing out the accounting convention that equal debits and credits sum to zero, and thus the obviously beneficial efficacy of a debit-credit monetary policy at the point of retail sale and also at note signing.
I’m assuming that the vast majority who are currently afflicted by the current system’s lack of economic and monetary democracy will do as the wealthy have always done with their excess, that is, save and invest it.
A paradigm change doesn’t change things that don’t need to be changed or forbid things that either can be understandably encompassed within it or align with it. In other words when we went from hunting and gathering to agriculture we didn’t stop hunting, and when The Reformation became a reality people still took the church’s sacraments it’s just that their oppressive monopoly status was eliminated.
“He would know what the factors were that determined whether his subsidy should 10, 50 or 80 per cent. Right now he doesn’t know and doesn’t care.”
Not true. As I have already pointed out the high percentage discount (it might of course be 40% or 75% as when it would be paired with the second discount at note signing) is designed to be irresistibly beneficial for both individual and commercial agents to insure its broad if not complete acceptance, to render normal garden variety inflation non-existent and to make the policy an actual paradigm change by virtue of it inverting current systemic and individual monetary scarcity into problem resolving abundance…the latter of which, again, is an historical signature of genuine paradigm changes.
Or we could just settle for another 5000 years of the palliative reforms of some smallish percentage discount which could be gamed out of its usefulness by garden variety inflation, or of merely increasing government deficits whose effects are indirect, also imminently game able, and so easily undone…exactly like Keynesianism was by the deadly combination of ideology and ignoring the factor of financial wealth and power’s ability to wreck any sane proposal with its current MONOPOLISTIC paradigm of Debt Only. In other words an ACTUAL paradigm change is required….unless we’re just here to chat.
NR: Mr. Holtham et al,
“Craig” really does have a “model” lodged in the recesses of his mind. It’s the old time “A+ B theorem” of Major Douglas & the “funny money” policies that were its applications. He & his kameraden on RWER are just calling it by a other names appropriate to its zombie resurrection: “gifting”, MMT, ‘ quantitative easing’ ,Argentinian monetary policy, a.k.a self-“gifting” via the printing press & stratospheric borrowing: Sort of like the 16 years of the Obama & Clinton administrations. Or “grace”, i the jargon of sanctimony & old time panacea/conspiracy theory. Almost a century ago John Maynard Keynes, Ralph Hawtrey & the British Actuarial Society demolished that stuff, without even raising a sweat.
Me: No its not Norman. Your slurring, word salad and completely untruthful post has no real basis in truth, especially regarding the Hawtrey Report wherein Douglas corrected all of their abstract nonsense about money and credit with his money is most basically accounting insight, but they would see no evil and hear no evil in orthodox simian style. And Keynes of course insulted Douglas…and then later (perhaps unconsciously because he never understood Douglas in the first place) wrote a passage in his general theory….that affirmed Douglas’ A + B theorem.
Also, I’ve run it past all of the people on the Social Credit google group and unfortunately none of them can countenance it because they have their heads too far up Douglas’ backside.
Douglas WAS insightful, I will give him his due, but even he was caught up in his present paradigmatic horizon of classical economics’ concept of general equilibrium. Also, the concept of a paradigm hadn’t been clearly expressed or researched at that time let alone a study of its historical signatures, all of which signatures Wisdomics-Gracenomics fulfills and affirms.
I have taken a couple of Douglas’ forms of policy and his insight that money’s most basic nature is accounting, and paradigmatically innovated them…which economically makes all the difference in the world….whether you or anyone else is willing to look at it directly and see its immediate policy effects in the temporal universe….or not.