Public Banking Thread In Attempt To Help Them See How an Integration With Wisdomics-Gracenomics Policy would Benefit Both

Walt,

I completely understand your attempt to make a good general and positive statement, and I’m sure the majority could sign on to it. By all means proceed.

I would only suggest taking that message directly to the individual at least as vigorously as lobbying politicians and tailoring THAT message to their obvious self interests (and the interests of the small to medium sized businessman as well) as blatantly and mathematically understandable as possible. That’s how MLK, Jr and Ghandi did it. Grassroots and obvious self interests.

Sample script: “With a non-profit publicly administered central bank and national banking system we could reduce the cost of a $300k house by say 50% at note signing and make it at 0% interest on a 10 year note thats a $625/mo. payment. 10 years and you’re an actual owner of your home instead of a renter of the Banks for 30 years. That way the system will serve us instead of us having to serve the system.”

(actually it could be lowered to $75k because with a 50% reduction at retail sale it could already be reduced to $150k, but that’s my job to communicate…unless of course Public Banking and Wisdomics-Gracenomics were to integrate with each other)

Advertisements

RE: Pensions and The New Paradigm

KZ:  Why can’t a worker have both? A defined benefits pension provided entirely by the employer that provides a known and fixed (adjusted for inflation) annual amount for the worker’s entire life span. The pension would be guaranteed by the federal government. And a defined contributions plan (offered at several levels of contributions) in which 50% of contributions come from the employer and 50% from the workers. The income from this plan would continue till saved funds are exhausted. Together these provide a basic and non-ending income for the worker, while providing supplemental funds to help in the purchase of big items.

Me:  They COULD have a defined benefit “pension” for their entire adult life with a $1000/mo. universal dividend that with a 50% discount at retail sale enabled them to purchase $2000/mo worth of goods and services. Furthermore, if we implemented a non-profit publicly administered national banking system and extended the 50% discount/rebate policy to the point of note creation they could purchase big ticket items like a $300k house reduced to $150 k at retail sale….to $75 k at 0% interest at note signing…because a non-profit banking system does not need to make a profit and creates money , like we do now, ex nihilo, so they can just reduce it by half or whatever percentage is decided upon….and no one suffers and everyone benefits because the system now serves man instead of man having to slavishly serve the system. Nice huh?

 

Conversations with MM

MM:  Craig, I suppose there’s a valid use-case for calling it merely the “Debt Only” paradigm but, tho this is a heady academic arena, I think calling it the piracy paradigm or klrptocracy paradigm or, for econometric techies, the plutonomy paradigm. It also seems worth pointing out the financialization of culture, the inherently collateral corruption of civilization and the corrupt dyseducation of human minds. Not sure what you mean by re-retailization of the same old con-game. Yet, the only possible solution I see is a new alternative that supports & sustains nontoxic, non-ecocidal culture, globally. Now, I need to get back to establishing the GCDA & GCCS as actual realities. Cheers ~

Me:  I call it the paradigm of Debt or Debt/Burden/Additional Cost Only because that specific paradigm (there are many unconsciously bouncing around inside every individual’s head) is most problematically relevant to economics. The other labels you put on them are accurate as well, but I like focusing in the primary/operant causes. I believe its one of the aspects of what I refer to as paradigm perception and as paradigms are integrative wholistic “things” themselves (they are a single concept that describe and define entire patterns) they reflect the process of wisdom itself.
From your other post to me that’s why I call my work Wisdomics-Gracenomics because its the thing that economic theorizing is most missing, that is wisdom and its pinnacle natural philosophical concept of grace whose various aspects have actually always been behind every historical paradigm change. I’ve mentioned here many times that wisdom includes the scientific method within it. Perhaps I could call it Scientific Wisdomics-Gracenomics and now that I think of it that might be better as it is a trinity-unity-oneness mental analytic process which squares with the subject of one of my other books The Cosmic Code which emphasizes the unitary trinitarian process itself which spoken is: an integrated duality within an integrative trinity-unity-oneness-process. You could fit it into the cosmic code either as

[(Science x Wisdom) —> Gracenomics ] or

[ (Economics x Wisdom) —> Wisdomics-Gracenomics ]

At any rate trinity-unity-oneness-process is seen throughout logic, mathematics, nature, consciousness studies/spirituality, etc. etc.

[ (1 + 2) —> 3 ], [ (2 + 3) —> 5 ], —> the Fibonacci sequence

Hegel’s dialectic

[ (the symmetrical sides of a leaf) —> the stem from which they both arose ]

[ (the abreactive/irrational dualistic character of a zen koan)
—> satori ]

[ (capitalism x socialism) —> The profit making system of Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Distributism ]

*******************************

To me finance isn’t a legitimate business model at all. Money being the life’s blood of individual and commercial survival and yet it dominates everyone and every other business model….instead of serving them. Money is a great tool that I see no real reason to alter or abandon, but enabling/justifying its power to dominate is a form of negative ethics. To me it’s not real to think that finance can be/remain a profit making business model. In order to rationally and ethically control the power and necessity of finance it must become a non-profit public utility that is guided by the unimpeachable concept and ethic of grace.

By “the re-retailization” of the economy I mean doing the above with finance, realizing that the purpose of production is consumption and that retail sale is the point where the former becomes the latter and that without the 5000 year old dominating and de-stabilizing intrusion of both its private and publicly administered varieties (unless of course the latter is, again, guided by the concept of grace) we could have a stable, fair, ethical and much more abundant economy for all….by focusing on the bringing of production to the point of consumption/retail sale.

MM:  Also, Craig, I think your list of Maslow’s factors are upside down. Also, zeitgeist/ethic of the era seems intrinsically inseparable from the dominant paradigm (the commonly accepted model of consensual reality).

Me:  Yes, research/Data Gathering is the bottom, Ethic/Zeitgeist is the top. An ethic of the age is the purest expression of a paradigm and the acculturation of it. Grace is the next zeitgeist for not only economics, but everything from physics to spirituality. Grace being the ultimate integrative trinity-unity-oneness-process of everything….how can it not be so. The recognition of grace as the answer in and of each and everything/the cosmos is actually the holographic insight (every part is and has all of the essential aspects/parts of the whole…and vice versa)

RL:  Beware of collective nouns.

Me:  Of course. But we should also seek them. Even though parochial religion is almost certainly delusive, if we do not seek the EXPERIENCES of god in order to self actualize them we live a hapless, one eyed, pitiful and potentially dangerous existence.

RL:  So you are the world historical figure through whom the experiences of god are being self actualized. Its a messy business. Hegel thought Napoleon was a world historical figure fulfilling this role and N said what are the lives of a million men to a man like myself. Start by valuing the lives of every individual, or you end up a mass murderer.

Me:  Of course I never made any such claim. I DO claim that is everyone’s adult responsibility though. The clarity of present time is a lot less messy than science or any other orthodoxy.

*************************

Me:  Michael,
MM:  “Craig, I do see what you mean, but the dialog with RL proves my point.
For example, you both resorted to theology & philosophy without achieving any generally acceptable upgrade of economics or its fractured paradigm, meta-economics.

ME:  Actually I didn’t resort to theology, but rather natural philosophy/spirituality which is Buddhist to the core. And if looked at and understood I’ve (over and over) described the concept and temporal universe effects of the new paradigm. It’s just that it’s still going splat! whenever it hits orthodoxy and mind filters created by same. But I soldier on. 🙂

MM:  “Theological arguments & doctrines & dogma & terms seem woefully inappropriate to the task. Any valid science is based on discovering what is, beyond mere belief & opinion.
Spirituality, religion and religious beliefs, maxims, etc., are clearly potent noetic elements and motivators of human cultural activity. Hence, they can and should be considered for realistic analysis. Yet, they cannot be determining elements of scientific theory and practice.”

Me:  I agree. However, grace (or any other word other wisdom traditions hang on it like satori-kensho, samadhi, atonement, “the friend”, moksha, etc. is referring to the same experience. Also, grace as in the dynamic, interactive, integrative flow of the cosmos (shiva’s dance etc. plug in the wisdom tradition concept) IS the most cutting edge quantum physics description of ACTUAL temporal universe reality so there’s no mere duality necessary to argue about and one can see (if they drop their own mind filters) that the ultimate reality is the integrative trinity-unity-oneness-process of the cosmic code that recognizes that all perspectives/realities and their opposites have truth in them including the existential reality of human consciousness that perceives and can unify them. After all as the zen saying goes: Wherever you go there YOU are.

Wisdom includes Science, and there is no necessary conflict between the two.

Finally, grace as in love in action is identical to the Buddhist “compassionate wisdom” so far as I can logically discern.

I sense you’ll be agreeing with me in this post.

Personal Quote

The “discipline” of macro-economics is really just a recent obfuscatory means of avoiding looking at the paradigm of Debt Only and the almost complete coalescence of the financialization of economies….and the the resolution of that mistake is the re-retailization of same.

Steve Hummel 01/16/2019

MMT, Steve Keen’s Disequilibrium, Minsky’s Financial Instability and Michael Hudson’s Financial Parasitism Are All Completed By Wisdomics-Gracenomics

C3000:  MMT gets a lot of it right but bottom line, MMT is basically apologists of the existing system, showing how, through policy, the most that can be derived from the existing system. Many are advocating for basic changes in the monetary system such as Ellen Brown (Public Banks), Joe Firestone (T$ coins) and there are those who still favor the Chicago Plan.

Me:  @charles3000,

MMT’s main draw back is that it is mainly focused on government debt when the continuous build up of private debt is the bigger and more salient point.

Yes, MMT has value because its anti-austerity which aligns with abundance and monetary gifting which are aspects of the new paradigm all of which align with the natural philosophical concept of grace. Steve Keen’s de-bunking of DSGE and disequilibrium theory and Minsky’s financial instability theory also align with the new paradigm, it’s just that he hasn’t cognited on the fact that policies strategically crafted around the new paradigm of abundantly direct and reciprocal monetary gifting and grace as in a dynamic, interactive, integrative free flowing state and process of “higher disequilibrium” is what will complete his theorizing.

Michael Hudson’s theory identifying the key structural economic problem of financial parasitism and his historical research regarding debt jubilees which is a form of monetary gifting would be completed by the new paradigm as well.

Some here mistakenly think that my focus on money is intellectually isolated, fragmentary and cranky. They miss the main thrust of my thinking which is the integrative ethic and its pinnacle concept. I’m continually pointing at the concept that defines the new monetary, economic and financial paradigm and even the concept behind that and every historical paradigm change, and identifying realities at that level and higher. I have posted this scale here several times. It is a scale of the levels of mental integration that one can approach problems and solutions from, and each level contains the thinking of the levels below it. Unfortunately but inevitably minds focused on whatever level they are habituated to are generally scantily conscious of the levels above and so have trouble self actualizing the realities that exist there. This is Maslow’s psychologically correct pyramid.

Ascending from bottom to top it is:

Zeitgeist/Ethic of the Age

Paradigm/Pattern

Philosophy/Wisdom

Theory

Research/Data Gathering

JH:  Craig, you are mistaken in thinking that MMT is mainly focused on public debt and you are also mistaken in thinking that MMters are unaware of the the importance and significance of the gradual buildup of private debt, and your assumption that MMTers do not prioritize tackling the problem of excessive private debt is simply wrong. MMTers as a whole are well aware of the ideas and insights of Minsky.

Me:  John H,

I didn’t say they were unaware of it. Whenever I hear them or read what many of them say that’s almost all they clamor on about. My point was actually that they don’t seem to be aware of what the concept of the new paradigm actually is and so they have at least one foot planted squarely in the current/old one, namely Debt/Burden/Additional Cost Only. They rail against a universal dividend in favor of a job guarantee which again shows that their remedies fall within the paradigm of Work For Pay Only, and like almost every economist other than social crediters have absolutely no awareness of the policy expression of the new paradigm itself of direct and reciprocal monetary gifting (and social crediters on the list I know you’re aware of can’t/won’t think innovative-ly with Douglas which means they’re happy to only come up with a superior theory instead of a paradigm change and there’s a helluva lot more benefit with the latter than the former.

I’m not intending to slam anyone actually, I pointed out how MMT and other theorists align with the new paradigm, just trying to get others to think on that higher level of mental integration.

The Tipping Point of Retail Sale and Paradigm Change

KZ:   Frank, differential equations are part of humanly constructed mathematics. Such equations are thus “human aspects.” I don’t really understand what you are referring to when you say “physical reality of economics.” Economics supposedly studies economic actions and actors. Which parts are the “physical” and which are not?

Me:  Ken, I’ll give you a physical/empirical/temporal universe economic result. The point where production becomes consumption, i.e. retail sale for human beings and commercial agents. And as that is the ending, summing and terminal expression point of all costs and prices including profit and any and all inflation for the physical stuff of production, a simple digital ( -,+ ) monetary policy of sufficient percentage like say 50% can instantaneously double everyone’s purchasing power, potentially double the available business revenue for all enterprises and completely invert modern technologically advanced fixed capital intensive economies inflationary tendencies into painless and beneficial price deflation.

Summing, ending and terminal expression points are also tipping points which have inherent paradigmatic power, and the actual new insights and basic operations of every historical paradigm change have been simple and yet potent enough to be transformational. Like going from a nomadic hunting and gathering existence to homesteading, agriculture and city states. Like the inversion of the position of the earth and the sun. Like Debt Only for the sole form and vehicle for the distribution of money to strategically implemented Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting.

R:  Craig, While I agree that any cash disbursements will increase buying power and make everyone temporarily better off, more people will qualify for loans and borrow until increased debt destroys any gains. The lenders can always attach all surplus and let the people suffer.

Me:   rddulin,

Not if we have a publicly administered national banking and central banking system that is fully at arms reach from the other branches of government and that is guided by the pinnacle concept of wisdom one of whose aspects is dynamic, interactive and integrative balance. As a public banking system can do everything good that a private banking system does and a helluva lot less that is destructive, and again, is guided by the supreme ethical concept of grace it is Occam’s Razor and common sense that we implement that system. And that’s why it is a major structural plank in Wisdomics-Gracenomics.

Paradigm changes are entire pattern changes and we have to think wholistically to see them while also recognizing that structures within the old paradigm that are dominating and diametrically opposed to the concept of the new paradigm will of necessity have to yield to that new paradigm. And of course history tells us that we never regress back to old paradigms after they are accomplished…because they are such obvious and generally beneficial changes. Hence everything adapts to the new paradigm….not the other way around.

KZ:  Craig, how about where production becomes a recognizable product, and where that product becomes a commodity, and where that commodity is put out for sale. These seem more important to me. Craig, I agree that treating one dollar as if it were two dollars increases purchasing power, but only if this applies to the both the selling and buying ends of commodity exchange. If that’s the case, in a few months or at most years, everyone will adjust to the change in value, and commodity exchanges will go on as before.

If you’re searching for tipping points in economic transactions, try these. Forming the company or firm, choosing the products to turn into commodities, and deciding how to price the commodities. Traditional economics says in a market all participants are “price takers.” I can tell you with absolute certainty (since I’ve seen this process in action) that there are price takers and “price makers.” The latter have more than an advantage. They often control what’s sold and the price paid.

Me: @ Ken,

“how about where production becomes a recognizable product, and where that product becomes a commodity, and where that commodity is put out for sale.”

You just described retail sale.

“I agree that treating one dollar as if it were two dollars increases purchasing power, but only if this applies to the both the selling and buying ends of commodity exchange. If that’s the case, in a few months or at most years, everyone will adjust to the change in value, and commodity exchanges will go on as before.”

Not if participation in the discount/rebate policy is dependent upon raising prices at retail only on the basis of actual and valid additional costs. As I enumerated before the synergistic effect of pairing the dividend with the discount is that taxation for welfare, unemployment insurance and social security will enable enterprise to eliminate a significant amount of costs so it will be extremely difficult to justify cost increases unless something truly disastrous like loss of a large part of productive capacity for some reason. Also, fixed costs in modern technologically advanced capital intensive economies are very high and competition between and within business models does exist. So if a business wants to inflate their prices they risk losing market share. Most importantly, why would reasonable decision makers want to risk losing their participation rights in a system that doubles the potential revenue for their products and services and if they lose that right they have to get $10 for their product while their competitors only have to get $5 and yet with the rebate still get $10????

Of course as I also pointed out the world is not an entirely rational or ethical place so along with the stick of losing participation rights in the generally beneficial new system, as with any system you could have regulation like economic sin taxes to discourage arbitrary price increases (or excessive price cutting by dominant commercial actors) and tax incentives for honest cost accounting and price decisions.

Market worshiping is only for the faith based economic theorists. Wisdomics-Gracenomics is a highly sensitive ethical system based on wisdom which is the integration of the practical and the ideal….and which also knows the heart of man is basically good…but flawed.

KZ:  Craig, thanks. This helps a lot. Your positions are now much clearer. Controlling prices is a difficult and potentially dangerous activity. For 30 years I’ve worked in regulation, mostly economic, environmental, and safety. Unlike Europe and Japan where economic regulation (including price) are more widely seen as beneficial, such regulation in the US is sometimes seen as inflating prices and harming consumers in other ways. Negotiating such regulation in the US is difficult at best and in bad situations is a nightmare. Keep this in mind. In my view economic regulation should not be about economics but rather about community welfare and strength. I can win this position in Europe, Japan, and even China. But not in the US. Which remains the spoiled brat among nations.

Me:  Ken @ 11:04,

“Negotiating such regulation in the US is difficult at best and in bad situations is a nightmare. Keep this in mind. In my view economic regulation should not be about economics but rather about community welfare and strength. I can win this position in Europe, Japan, and even China. But not in the US. Which remains the spoiled brat among nations.”

I would suggest the reason it is (or appears) so difficult is because economists and pundits focus only on the complexities of their discipline and have mostly only put the tip of their toes into visualizing the new MONETARY AND FINANCIAL paradigm which is the elephant in the room and the key to cutting the Gordian knot that ties the two biggest problems that plague modern economies, namely individual monetary scarcity and yet price and asset inflation.

I must have posted a hundred times that the process of wisdom is the integration of factors, truths, etc. in opposing perspectives. Therefore a wise and winning political strategy would be integrating the best aspects of the agendas of opposing parties into a more beneficial set of programs and economic policies….and the policies and regulations of Wisdomics-Gracenomics do exactly that.

They double everyone’s purchasing power and so every business’s potential revenue. That’s a quintessential integration of the interests of opposing political constituencies.

They enable lower taxation and elimination or major downsizing of government bureaucracies while simultaneously eliminating poverty and guaranteeing greater economic democracy than any pol or economist has ever figured out.

If you’re a republican or a democrat and don’t like the hollowing out of our economy by globalization just implement the two major policies of Wisdomics-Gracenomics and then you can rapidly re-industrialize the country in the most efficient technologically advanced and ecologically sane manner possible and not have to worry about unemployment or inflation.

And if you’re EVERYONE and you hate the private banks who “own the joint” why not end their curiously anti-free enterprise monopolistic money creating powers and their equally monopolisitic and dominating paradigm of Debt/Burden/Additional Costs Only…with Abundantly Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting at the summing, ending and terminal expression point of the economic process for every product and service at retail sale?

 

Paradighmatically Enlightening Thread on Social Credit and Its Lack of Advancement

Me:  Why not make the discount at retail sale 50%? That way both individual potential purchasing power and business revenue will be doubled. And because retail sale is the terminal ending point of the entire legitimate economic/productive process, the terminal summing point for all costs and so prices for every consumer item and finally the terminal expression point for all forms of inflation a 50% reduction in retail price actually painlessly and beneficially integrates price deflation into profit making systems.

Such a policy thus becomes more than a theory it is elevated to the level of paradigm change.
Merely filling the gap statistically goes against Douglas’s observation that balancing the books of the economy is a prescription for recession or depression. I remember Wally saying that Douglas and some of the early social crediters debated what percentage of deficit the gap actually was and some of them thought it could be as high as 90%.

JS:   Hi Steve 😊,

The size of the discount needs to be accurately measured, not just determined “Willy nilly”.
Now, of course, economic sabotage plays a big part of it, and youre correct, Douglas said it could be as high as 75%, but I don’t think it’s prudent to do that initially.  Many of the goods and services we are producing need to disappear first.
I did a quick calculation for Canada based tool on government stats, and it was around 15%.  This obviously could be increased over time, but I think it’s prudent to be cautious initially.

Me:  There’s no need to quibble over numbers. You could just as easily make the Dividend $1500/mo with a 33% discount/rebate that would enable everyone to purchase $1995/mo, or make the dividend $1600/mo with a 25% dividend and then everyone can purchase $2000/mo. All of the “knock on” benefits of reduced transfer taxation for the individual and enterprise could thus still be implemented.

Social crediters are far too concerned with what the “authorities” and elites will think and say….and (puzzlingly)  do not seem to recognize how politically powerful its message would be if communicated directly to the individual. Politics is simultaneously the strongest and weakest aspect of the financial elite’s hypnotic control of the populace. The boldness of paradigm change is the route to real change, caution only leads to palliative reform. If Christ had said grace was scarce or sparse instead of abundant would he have attracted as large a following? If Luther had said you still had to fulfill 50% of the sacraments with the church because you could only have 50% of a direct relationship with god would The Reformation have even occurred?

JS:  Hi Steve,

We shouldn’t even be talking about numbers unless we have the stats to back them up.  The Alberta Social Credit Party was a populist movement.  Douglas was quick to distance himself from it.  And as it turns out his decision was wise.  The Social Credit Party embarrassed itself repeatedly, and we are still feeling the sting of that embarrassment to this day.  People here still call it the “funny money” party.

Me:  Well, good luck getting social credit going without showing large bi-partisan constituencies like workers and businessmen exactly how social credit is going to benefit them.

AW:   Hi Steve,

I have to acknowledge that what you say does make a lot of sense at least on paper but I am not sure how it would go in the real world. I am sure there could be a few variables out there that could put pressure on these numbers. I believe the safest and wisest way to approach this would be on more on a scientific basis.

We could do this slowly in a number of increments until we get the magic number that works. Waiting for the result of each increment will give us the opportunity to observe its effect on the economy first so we can act accordingly.  If for example we get our figures wrong in these small increments it can be fixed easily without to much damage to our credibility. By going slowly the population will see that the foundation we are working on is strong and that it is credible. The continued rising growth of affordability without excess inflation will do wonders, I’m sure.

There is also the issue of wasteful production Jim has mentioned about. I’m sure we could regulate what products are able to utilise this discount rate on. So in other words blatant wasteful production could be penalised by reduced discount or none at all. I am sure that over a period of a few years the desired changes for quality long life products will be a reality and with it more leisure time and a more sustained environment.

Me:  Thanks for replying Andrew.  I can understand caution, but the fact remains social credit has gone absolutely no where since WW II started and distracted everyone, Keynes became the fall back position of finance to it and Douglas and social credit got virtually erased from history.

Social credit needs at least a shocking re-introduction and preferably a re-working from the best mere economic theory of the last 90 years into the paradighm change its basic policies could accomplish. I prefer the $1000/mo dividend and 50% discount/rebate policy for that reason alone, but again I’m not one to quibble over numbers. You could also have a $1600/mo. dividend a 25%  discount rebate at retail sale for most everyday consumer items and a 50% discount/rebate on big ticket items like houses and cars. The point is to vastly decrease personal/private indebtedness and completely eliminate price and asset inflation which breaks up finance’s paradigm of Debt Only for the sole form and vehicle for the creation and distribution of money/credit.
I know this will bring howls from orthodox social crediters, but IMO private banking will never ever be anything but an unethical and disruptive force and so must be replaced by a publicly administered national banking system and a central bank aligned with the philosophical concept of grace which social credit is based on. It’s simply applying Occam’s Razor to the financial system. Private and public finance are potentially corruptible, but one entity stripped of its profit motive and strictly regulated and aligned with grace as in monetary gifting would be a whole lot easier to handle than a bunch of rogue trillionaires. That and it could also really supercharge the effects of a monthly dividend and a retail discount/rebate policy. How? By extending the retail discount/rebate policy to the point of note signing. In other words a $300k house discounted 50% at point of retail sale by the monetary authority to $150k and then a $150k note at 0% is disbursed to the home building corporation to make them whole on their margins and overheads…and then the public national bank which does not need to make a profit discounts the note 50% to $75k. On a 10 year note thats a $625/mo. payment. 10 years and you’re an actual owner of your home instead of a renter of the Banks for 30 years. Just how attractive might that be to every voter except the bankers???

AW:  Thanks Steve,

You are speaking my language. Yes, Social Credit has almost become an extinct tiger that has so much potential. Yet, no one knows this more than the private banking system themselves. They really feel threatened by Social Credit because it has all the tools needed to eventually dismantle them. They have managed to silence us and keep us in check all these years. This needs to change.

As you say just using the National Dividend and The Retail Discount alone it is possible to remove debt, which I believe Douglas intended to do anyway but at a slower rate.

I am in total agreement with you that the private banking system needs to be taken out of the equation and replaced with Social Credit banks or a National Public Bank owned by the people via a central bank aligned with the workings of Social Credit. (We used to have one in Australia)

I believe Social Credit is already workable right now, it just never had the ability show its potential that’s all, but there is nothing wrong in trying to improve it if possible. The action of setting up a network of Social Credit banks in the community could be one of them. The action of removing the private banks right to create money as debt could be another.

But first of all we need to rewrite the description of Social Credit so that it can be easily understood. I believe this should be the first priority as we are losing so many potential people through lack of understanding. Then we need to rethink how we can promote it with social media and other venues. When the people understand how Social Credit Works it will be impossible to remove it from them.

JS:  Hi Andrew and Steve,

I want to add my thoughts to your conversation.
Certainly, we need to try a different approach from what we have done in the recent past.   That hasn’t worked.  I don’t think that writing more books on the subject, or giving speeches to the converted is getting us anywhere.  I’m a firm believer that for as much as we talk about new technology, we are the least prone to use it effectively.  Nobody reads books anymore, and why should they?  I don’t read anymore (or at least I read very little).  Most of the information I get is from YouTube.  We are not using this medium nearly as much as we should be.  We use it for recorded speeches, or talks that nobody listens to.  We need to be giving short, animated presentations on the subject.  And in such a manner, as you suggest, that is simple enough for most people to understand.  I truly believe that is the way we need to market ourselves.  And then spread those videos far and wide in hopes that one or a few go “viral”.
In terms of suggesting numbers for a dividend or a price rebate, I believe that exercise is fool hardy unless you have statistics to back it up.  Any suggestion of numbers for the dividend and price rebate will be torn to shreds by anyone who’s competent unless they can be effectively demonstrated.  I’m of the mindset that we avoid numbers all together, and if we must use them, do so cautiously.  It’s very easy to attack a theory if the claims can be demonstrated to be ridiculous.  Don’t forget, it’s up to us to prove our theory, not for others to disprove it.
Nationalization of banking really has very little to do with Social Credit.  Again, I think this is another point that others will attack.  The nationalization of all banking is one of the planks in the Communist Manifesto.  Suggestions of nationalization of all banks will bring attacks by those on the right that already may view our ideas as that “socialist credit” platform.  There is no necessity to nationalize banking, and doing so only increases the monopoly of credit that they already enjoy.  As Douglas wrote, we need to change banking policy, not administration.  Policy can be changed by laws.  There’s no need for the government to get involved in the banking industry, and this would just be another point of criticism for our adversaries.
I would also suggest that promoting Social Credit as an idea that encompasses much more than mere monetary reform is essential.  As Douglas wrote, if Social Credit is merely promoted as a means for monetary reform, then it will follow the monetary reform curve of success (people will be interested when times are tough, and not the least interested when the economy is doing well).  I like the fact that Steve has taken more of this approach, even if I’m not in entire agreement with his philosophy, or world view.  A big hurdle that Social Credit has to overcome from its critics on the right is this philosophy of salvation through works.  It’s a puritanical mindset that has really infected the North American mind.

Me:  The truth is no matter what numbers one puts out or doesn’t put out at all the orthodox and consciously opposed to monetary gifting are going to try to slam it. That’s precisely why you need to make short pungent videos and use obviously self interested numbers to grasp the populace’s attention and keep it. Even advise people to ignore the contrarily self interested protestations of the economic and financial elites. Does everyone need to have a full intellectual understanding of social credit? Of course not. And when they say social credit is socialism just point out that re-distributive taxation is the essence of socialist economic policy and that a sufficient dividend and discount/rebate would enable us to get rid of the great deal of such for both businesses and individuals, and retort that “Freeing both enterprise and the individual from socialist re-distributive taxation….that’s a funny kind of socialism/communism….wouldn’t you say?”  Boldness, the willingness and ability to look at and strategically utilize illogic as a means of exiting the hypnotic effects of orthodoxy and old/current paradigm thinking are in facr signatures of imminent and accomplished paradigm change. We need to go for it!

DM:  I think we ride the coattails of the UBI push and add the thought that our approach provides the mechanism to pay for it without having to incur public debt and kick that can down the road too.

As for the CP, it is a critical component too because it provides the needed money at exactly the point it is needed.  Who can’t get behind the idea that we collect a sales credit instead of paying a sales tax, and that this actually betters – not worsens – our collective weal?  If we convince them of the existence of a gap, then this point won’t be resisted either.

The only comment I will make is that perception is reality – even if it is not the truth.  We can’t argue the simple fact that again and again, the canards keep getting thrown at SC.  If a frontal assault doesn’t work, go guerilla.  That is why I say ride the coattails of Public Banking.  It is like Warburg told his cronies at Jekyll Island, “Don’t worry, we’ll fix the rest of it later.”  It took the bastards half a century to unwind Glass-Seigel but they were patient.  Walk, crawl, run.  That’s what I say.

Me:  I would suggest that Public Banking and Social Credit integrate their efforts, but that we keep in mind that Social Credit is the deeper, more pragmatic program and point of view. Not for any egotistical reason, but simply because Public Banking is only dealing with the major structural problem while Socail Credit or an innovated and even more synergistically powerful version thereof deals with both the more underlying and encompassing aspect of the problem, namely the the current monopolistic paradigm of Debt/Burden/Additional Costs Only. Structural reform is good. Paradigm change is a rare, utterly significant and permanently progressive historical event.

DM:  And there is another factor.  People today are radically different from those half a century ago.  We are all much more stressed and therefore intolerant.  We also no longer trust politicians or our institutions.  The mindset today is much more selfish.  We need to emphasize “what’s in it for me?” because that is what people generally think.  We’re already on the cusp of what Plato told us was the weakness of democracy; that eventually it devolves to us all voting ourselves some free money.  After TARP and bankster bailouts, how could it be otherwise?  I want my bailout too!  That’s what people think so USE IT!

Me:  Wisdom!

JT:  Steve,

Just where are you suggesting this “boldness” in the manner you’ve proposed take place?  The USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand?  Where?  Who’s going to go first?  I personally can’t see the citizens of any of the latter three realms responding favorably to being that ‘bold’.   And that’s based on observing historical precedent of the ‘on-the-ground’ experience with Social Credit in each of those latter three countries.

As Jim has mentioned, the good people of Alberta once bought in to the leader of  a well-organised SC group preaching a similar “boldness”, back in an era where it seemed much more appropriate than it might today.  His sermon sounded real good back then ~ $ 25 a month dividend, at a time when a good wage for many would be around $ 3  a day,  and many made far less than that.  If they still had any income at all.   And a restriction on prices, too.  Many had nothing to lose ~ they’d already lost it, or were on the verge.  But the leader of that group, one William Aberhart, found on taking office that he not only couldn’t deliver, but he really didn’t have a clue how to deliver either.  And he had the one real expert ‘on tap’ ~ Douglas himself.  Whose advice he couldn’t understand, nor see how he could reconcile what he’d promised with it.

Since that time there have been numerous other calls for “boldness” in Canada.  I still have a somewhat dated mail-out from the “White Berets” , a Quebec based Catholic Social Credit advocacy group~ one  of many I’ve seen that used to go out to every household in Canada.  It called on the then Canadian government, headed at the time by Jean Chretien, to immediately initiate a National Dividend payment of $ 800 a month to every Canadian.

Prior to that, the old Social Credit Party of Canada, which actually once had a considerable presence in the Canadian Federal Parliament, often used to make similar “bold” proposals, albeit of a lower figure, but relevant proportionally to the  incomes of the times.    It all came to naught.   Undoubtedly to an ever shrinking minority, what was proposed “sounded good”.  To everyone else it sounded,  well, simply  goofy.

People just couldn’t see how you could pay everyone a dividend without taking what you’d be paying from someone else.  It just sounds too good to be true ~ and you can tell them all the stories about Jesus and his ‘loaves and fishes’ you want, and ‘grace’ and all that, and even if they go around proudly ‘wearing’ their Christianity,  when push comes to shove they’re still not  going to believe you.

If you don’t believe me, then ask yourself how many ever see the irony in  how any government that supposedly has to borrow money from banks  to function can turn around and bail out those same banks when they get in trouble?  How many of the general public could explain that, or even  understand it?

Now I’m not completely discounting the idea of “boldness”.   For I do think something ‘bold’ is going to be necessary to ever get the foot of Social Credit back  in the public’s door.  And that something, in my opinion, could be the Compensated Price Discount.  Getting something started like that alone is going to take considerable “boldness”.  But it has a chance.  And no real competition.  And I think it’s going to be far more marketable alone than trying to peddle the whole works all at once initially.  Because  it addresses the primary problem that those politically active on both the ‘left’ and ‘right’ are increasingly complaining about.  AFFORDABILITY.

If we go that other route,  pushing  the same old kick we’ve been on about for years, and it, by some miracle,  ever does catch the attention of a large body of the public again ,  I believe we’re going to find we’ll  quickly run into a great many obstacles we’ve so far ignored.

Ones that will prove collectively almost impossible to overcome while trying to hold the fleeting attention of our erstwhile supporters.  If you go back and read Douglas’s “Draft Plan for Scotland”, you’ll notice some of them, I’m sure.   To wit, the ‘land issue’, for one.  Try to sell that notion to people who have convinced themselves the secret to financial success is to buy (a house) low and sell  it high.  Or anything else, for that matter.   That’s not something you can accomplish instantly.

And then there are other problems.  Perhaps not so much in the USA, because you have a large domestic market that can already absorb a lot of your own production.  But in the three Dominions mentioned above?  They do NOT.

The vast majority of their production is destined for export, and the physical ‘plant’ in each of them has been scaled up for that purpose.  In a overwhelming number of instances  what exists now  simply couldn’t be operated practically on a smaller scale.  How are you even going to sell the notion that it could to the owners and operators of that plant?   That may not seem important to you, but even if we had a government with a knowledgeable, beneficent,  absolute  dictator at its head, that’s going to be an enormous challenge.  Your ‘paradigm shift’ won’t be well received by those currently controlling finance internationally.  Nor if it can be caused to fail by them.

Me:  Joe,

The citizen’s of Canada, Australia and New Zealand as a whole would be unmistakably better off with the kind of dividend and discount/rebate policy I’ve talked about. There can be no argument about that. That in and of itself would increase their domestic consumption which would be good for their producers, and if large and populace nations like the USA re-industrialized in order to make their economy more robust and cut the wasteful costs of globalized production as I’m sure they would that would undoubtedly enable the producers in the AUS and NZ areas to group together and create a mutually acceptable trading block. The concept is subsidiarity and it not only works it’s a lot more sane than everyone trying to become an export platform.
A new paradigm has to be thoroughly visualized by its leaders and intelligently communicated to the general populace, and the nay sayers simply need to be ignored…..particularly by its leaders.  The battle may be a pitched one, but the vision must be held forth…until the obvious dominating self interests of the elite re-inforcing it….is recognized by the many.
If we don’t do that, then I commend you to your separate counsels of despair.

JS:  Actually, Steve, you don’t know if they’d be better off with the type of discount and rebate you’ve discussed because you have nothing to support it.

If the size of the discount and dividend is too high, you could end up with massive shortages and inflation.  If that happened, people would not be better off, and Social Credit would end up in the dust bins of history.
I like a lot of what you write, but I completely disagree with arbitrary assumptions about the size of the discount or dividend when they seem outrageously high.

 

Me:  Not correct. You’ve apparently forgotten one thing I got from the social credit group here when I first came acrossed it 8 years ago. And that is that retail sale is the terminal ending point of the entire economic/productive process. So if you implement the 50% discount/rebate policy at that point it will absolutely invert inflation into deflation.  Put that together with the fact that competition IS in effect between and within business models throughout that entire process and so “garden variety” inflation will not and competitively cannot excede a relatively low single digit number, and also understand that hyper-inflations do not and CANNOT occur without certain prior disastrous circumstances like a war which destroys most of the means of production and a central bank that is compliant in leveraging up speculators who short the currency which kicks off the actual hyper-inflation…so a 50% discount AT THE END of the entire process at retail sale….WILL ELIMINATE INFLATION and WILL MATHEMATICALLY INTEGRATE BENEFICIAL PRICE DEFLATION INTO PROFIT MAKING SYSTEMS. Of course you’ll need sin taxation and the threat of expulsion from the discount/rebate program to discourage the greedy, anti-social and unappreciative businessmen who will try to commit creeping inflation or extreme price deflation on the part of monopolistic enterprise, and perhaps tax encouragements for businesses not to inflate their prices except for genuine increased costs….no system is perfect not even one that has experienced a new paradigm, but the reality that the new paradigm creates UNMISTAKABLY IN THE TEMPORAL UNIVERSE…cannot be denied BECAUSE EVERYONE EXPERIENCES IT….like the ability to purchase twice or thrice as much with the same level of income as they did the day before the new paradigm occurred.

JS:  Steve,

I said if the dividend and price rebate are can create massive shortages and inflation.
The rebate is only a ratio.  If all prices increase, they will still increase with a price rebate mechanism.  The rebate mechanism doesn’t fix prices,
Further, if the rebate is too high, then you could also end up with massive shortages where there is too much demand for companies to keep up at that price.
Nowhere does Douglas, or any economist, claim that the supply of goods and services can be met at any price.
What Social Crediters are seeking is equilibrium between aggregate incomes and aggregate prices.  There’s absolutely no guarantee that the size of the dividend and price rebate you suggest will bring about that equilibrium.

Me:  “What Social Crediters are seeking is equilibrium between aggregate incomes and aggregate prices.  There’s absolutely no guarantee that the size of the dividend and price rebate you suggest will bring about that equilibrium. ”

Yes, they are. And that’s part of the problem. Douglas’s A + B theorem makes him the first DISEQUILIBRIUM theorists. I’ve been trying to communicate that fact to the best present day economists for years.  Douglas was against the idea of balancing/equilibrating the books because the system was inherently cost inflationary. Merely filling the gap is just an extension of balancing the books when what is required to have a truly freeing and free flowing system is to create waht I call “the higher disequilibrium”.
“The rebate is only a ratio.  If all prices increase, they will still increase with a price rebate mechanism.  The rebate mechanism doesn’t fix prices,”
No they won’t. It’s NOT JUST a ratio. Again you forget that retail sale is the terminal ending, summing and expression point for costs, prices and any and all forms of inflation. How can it be anything but so….as it is the terminal ending point for all items and services….where production becomes consumption? And I already explained how any inflation that might occur before and throughout the entire process can only be a very small single digit number so that if there was 3% inflation you’d still have 47% price deflation, and technically you could just make the discount 53% and voila!, everyone’s purchasing power is immediately doubled!
“Further, if the rebate is too high, then you could also end up with massive shortages where there is too much demand for companies to keep up at that price.”
No there wouldn’t. In the first place doubling purchasing power does not necessarily equate with a doubling of consumption. (and part of my program would try to further acculturate the always relevant factor of thrift and other economic virtues in the interest of being free from the enslavement of debt) In the second place you’ve already recognized that we’re over producing in order to attempt to fill the gap so we’ve got plenty enough productive capability to meet any upping of consumption.
“The higher disequilibrium” is a much more stable flow than the A + B or mere book balancing the gap economies.

JS:   Douglas was not against balancing the books.  He said they can’t balance under the current accountancy.   His solution, which involves a dividend and price rebate created with debt free credits, would balance the books, thus creating equilibrium. 

 “And I already explained how any inflation that might occur before and throughout the entire process can only be a very small single digit number so that if there was 3% inflation you’d still have 47% price deflation, and technically you could just make the discount 53% and voila!, everyone’s purchasing power is immediately doubled! “
That’s right!  And a 50% discount might very well end up being a 15% discount if the discount creates 35% inflation.
The fact of the matter us you don’t know, and you have no statistics to back your claim of a 50% discount.  That’s the issue!  And issuing the discount in that fashion is reckless,  in my opinion.
“In the first place doubling purchasing power does not necessarily equate with a doubling of consumption.”
I never said it did!  But doubling purchasing power either doubles consumption, ceterus paribus,  or it also causes inflation.  Those are the two options.

Me:  “But doubling purchasing power either doubles consumption, ceterus paribus,  or it also causes inflation.  Those are the two options.”

ceterus paribus is just another errent orthodoxy. Money is not the actual or the most basic cause of inflation. Its most basic and relevant cause is commercial agents existing in an economy of scarcity of individual income and hence business revenue seeing more money coming into the system and thus deciding to inflate in order to garner more revenue.  If you provide a better, more rational, beneficial and more profit making alternative to that reality like the 50% discount/rebate the smart businessmen will embrace it.
JS:  Steve,

Ceterus paribus is just Latin for “all things being equal “.  It doesn’t have anything to do with economics itself.  In fact, scientists do experiments in labs so that they can keep other variables,  ceterus paribus.
Me:  It’s still irrelevant to the fact that a sufficiently high percentage discount/rebate monetary policy at the point of sale would accomplish a paradigm change in economic and the money system. Full stop.
And doubling POTENTIAL purchasing power does NOT mean that everyone will consume twice as much mashed potatoes, bed sheets, dog food and lipstick. They will undoubtedly save a lot more and probably pay down debt with the 50% savings they get at whatever they purchase at retail sale.