The End IS Near

Me: Economics has gone through a pluralist and empirical revolution. It’s just that THAT is not enough, and of course its just an academic phenomenon not a viral “infection” of the individual’s mind.

Economists and economic pundits are still unconscious instead of self aware, still nomadic hunters and gatherers instead of homesteading agriculturists and city dwelling artisans, still trying to resolve the perturbations of the orbit of Mars instead of inverting the positions of the earth and the sun and still factoring for-profit banking and finance and its monopolistic paradigm of Debt and Loan Only instead of opening their minds to the efficacy of Monetary Gifting with a direct and reciprocal 50% discount/rebate price and monetary policy at the point of retail sale.

In other words you’re non-activists who are failing to analyze on the paradigmatic level and hence, despite your railing against academic orthodoxies and otherwise well taken minor observations and palliative reforms, you’re virtually all stuck in erudite duncery and getting no where FAST.

Meanwhile your children or grandchildren will probably be victimized by either a monopolisitic corporatocracy or a vulgar marxism as climate change and the end of the age of petroleum falls upon them in another 20-30 years. Yes, the end IS near.

It’s the monetary and financial paradigm, stupid!!!

NR: Craig, There’s nothing like a bit of that old-time monetary ‘gifting’ a la Major Douglas, Dietrich Eckhart, Anton Drexler etc. a.k.a ‘quantitative easing’ . Just borrow & print the stuff & any body who objects is just a ‘reactionary’ And top it all off with the meringue of sanctimony. After all “A nation cannot owe itself money”. ’cause it’s just internal book-keeping’ . ‘eh fellas ? Ach, Der ewige spinner !

Me: Norman,

I thought you to be reasonably well informed until you confused quantitative easing which is nothing more than an asset swap with a paradigm changing concept like monetary gifting. Get up to date, boy. And please stop the ad hominem while you’re at it.

Despite the fact that his (very insightful) policies were not informed by a well defined concept of pattern/paradigm because he lived before Kuhn and hence did not fit them to that form of analysis, C. H. Douglas had more of an incisive and iconoclastic intellect than anyone I’ve seen posting here, virtually all of which are stuck in obsessive duality, complexity and hence the regurgitation of heterodox orthodoxies ad nauseum…when as I have repeatedly posted here the key to paradigm perception and real enlightenment is deep simplicity, that is the integrative mindset also known as Wisdom.

DT: Norman is of course quite wrong to ridicule the only justifiable role of money being accountancy, ignoring the problems of it all things to all men and differentially scaleable, but so is Craig when not accepting that what is owed, though not money, is regeneration of Nature’s resources.

Me: Dave,

“…but so is Craig when not accepting that what is owed, though not money, is regeneration of Nature’s resources.”

Your heart is right but apparently you don’t read many of my posts, as I am the only person here who has shown how monetary and financial policy can be utilized to make profit making systems align with and synergize a rapid move toward ecological sanity.

“My suggestion is that money should be valuing people, not goods.”

Well if you want to make your suggestion come true you should start a religious movement, or better still get on the bandwagon to implement monetary policies that continually dramatize and serve to self actualize the impetus behind every one of the world’s major wisdom traditions, namely grace as in love in action.

DT: But so what? I wrote “Norman is of course quite wrong to ridicule … but so is Craig when not accepting that what is owed, though not money, is regeneration of Nature’s resources”.

Here, he hasn’t shown ME how “monetary and financial policy can be utilized to make profit making systems align with … ecological sanity” or “grace as in love in action”. As I see it, profit-making is precisely NOT giving, nor is depending on it wise.

Me: Well, doing away with profit making economic systems is not only reactionary it’s also a complete non-starter politically (and everything ultimately gets down to politics, that is, if you want to live in the real world of the temporal universe)

I suggest we inhabit and operate in both the heights of wisdom and the temporal universe. And grace being the ultimate unifying of opposites concept, spiritual reality and affirmation of the Good…is precisely what is needed. That and monetary, financial and economic policies like I have posted here many, many times that align with it. Grace after all is not only high it is equally mighty and pragmatic…otherwise there wouldn’t be a book entitled Proverbs and paradigms changes would be mere theory instead of the deep pattern changing simplicities that they have historically proven to be.

DT: Craig, you characterise doing away with monetary profit-making as “reactionary”. Is it reactionary to recognise and try to correct one’s mistakes?

The point anyway is that the understanding of money has changed from it being seen as storing wealth as a valuable durable to it having become a mere number, creatable and erasable at the touch of a keypad but (quantities being always positive) liable to misrepresent directions of value flow.

Me: “Craig, you characterise doing away with monetary profit-making as “reactionary”. Is it reactionary to recognise and try to correct one’s mistakes?”

You questioned profit making, seemingly as a whole in your prior post. I took that as reactionary and too general.

I indeed have questioned and shown how for-profit finance violates the economic convention that every legitimate commercial agent obeys, namely that no one has a right to charge additional costs beyond the point of consumption, i.e. retail sale.

“The point anyway is that the understanding of money has changed from it being seen as storing wealth as a valuable durable to it having become a mere number, creatable and erasable at the touch of a keypad but (quantities being always positive) liable to misrepresent directions of value flow.”

Obsession with storing wealth easily devolves into your frequent criticism regarding the love of money. As for both value of purchasing power and applying actual human values to the economic system I’m the only one here who has shown how the new monetary and financial mega-paradigm concept of grace as in Gifting and its policies transfer seamlessly and evolutionarily into the areas of the ecology and of human ethics.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s