Me: The policy solution to monetary austerity for both the individual and for commercial agents, the final slaying of price and asset inflation and the implementation of a new monetary paradigm has been hiding in plain sight for almost a century. That policy is a 50% discount to the consumer at the point of retail sale that is entirely rebated back to the merchant giving it by the monetary authority. The effect would be to immediately double the purchasing power of everyone’s earned income, a doubling of any universal dividend/UBI, the immediate doubling of the potential revenue actually available for every enterprise’s goods and services AND because retail sale is the terminal ending point of the entire economic/actually productive process and hence must also be the terminal summing point for any and all forms of inflation it does the miraculous, that is, it beneficially integrates price and asset inflation into profit making economic systems. The actual operations of all paradigm changes are and always have been simple conceptual oppositions and temporal universe inversions of present realities. The switch from the current paradigm of Debt Only as the sole vehicle and form for the distribution of money/credit to Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting is precisely such an operation.
Me: All of this discussion is well and good, however, none of it focuses on and penetrates to the heart of the economic problem which is indeed the monetary paradigm.
There is no end to history so yes uncertainty is radical, but true and enduring progress does occur with paradigm changes….and history and the eventual new zeitgeist….that the concept behind the new monetary paradigm and behind ALL historic paradigm changes, will eventually make our times seem as primitive and un-evolved….as they actually are.
Decentralization is good if it benefits the individual in some way. It can be very bad when it occurs in an area of human endeavor that needs the hierachical ordering and ascension of philosophy and ethics, like in economics and the money system for instance.
This is where bitcoin and block chain fail. They are trying to evolve technically without taking into consideration that all human systems require the solidly hierarchical guidance of philosophy and ethics while the present economic and money system already is afflicted with a lack of ethics due to its being driven by tawdry philosophy.
The only philosophical concept sufficient to integrate both power and ethics is grace as it is the pinnacle concept of human wisdom, love. Grace is the active temporal universe form of love both in individual interaction and as policy in human systems. That means it is redemption of individual and systemic corruption via personal introspection and correction and systemic thinking and policy. Without this hierarchical mental necessity any attempt at evolution will fail because ethics is a human reality no matter to whom or to what one attributes that necessity to.
Decentralization is good in that it denotes empowerment to the individual. Grace is a universal suffrage concept that does the same while also being a bulwark against individualism becoming chaos and the mental illness of narrcissism.
First things first. Bring real ethics and the real wisdom of thoroughgoing philosophy to the economy and money system before you try to decentralize it into its already ethically compromised state.
Economics doesn’t need another data point “insight” it needs an entirely new philosophy, a philosophy which alters the entire pattern of economics in beneficial ways for every agent individual and commercial and makes the system flow with the abundant fluidity that the current data point rich pattern claims to accomplish but actually fails to actually provide. Steve Hummel 09/12/2019
The wise seek out and find the elementally truthful factors and insights, that integrated, lead to true progress both within oneself and in the temporal universe. Complexities are all well and good and the wise heed them….and combine them in ways that transcend their mere data point significances. Thinking is several rungs down the ladder of epistemology from looking and knowing. Steve Hummel 09/12/2019
L: CH Douglas had a lot to say about how nationalizing a central bank would be jumping from the frying pan into the fire. You would do well to read what he had to say about it before you advocate it. It might change your thinking. Send me an email and I’ll email the PDF book. Or you could ask Jim or Wally for the quotes on the SC forum. I took great pains to frame my recommendations in my own book to avoid exactly those pitfalls, and you already have a copy of that. I recommend that you add a paragraph outlining the pitfalls. Of course, you might also mentioned that the Fed itself is completely in oppostition to the Constitution itself that mandates the regulation of money to Congress – not a foreign-owned corporation that serves the interests of international finance instead of the American people. It can’t hurt to speak the truth. Quote Article 1, Section 8.
JR: Hi Liam.
Douglas was very much against privatising the trading bakns, with which I totally agree.
Me: I have a great deal of respect for CH Douglas, however, he lived before there was a conscious concept of a paradigm change. He also lived in GB which did not have a constitution. He also leaned toward the Tory perspective which at best is a mixed bag of economic truths and untruths.
JR: Douglas, by comparison, was an internationally renowned consulting Engineer. He was brought in by the UK govt during WW1 to bring efficient organisation to the aircraft industry at Farnsborough.
Me: That “vacuous series of semi-meaningless phrases and irresponsible promises” is actually an integration of the insights of cutting edge quantum physics, trans-personal human psychology and man’s various wisdom traditions plus a deeper and more elemental study of the signatures of historically accomplished paradigm changes than Kuhn’s informative but merely abstract observations of same…..all applied to economics and the money system.
GA: Trump wants three things. He wants to perform a negative rate default on our bonds so he doesn’t have to pay interest to the Chinese. Remember he wanted to default on bonds? This is a backup plan.
Me: Tarrifs are not only a losing game for high cost technologically advanced non-export platform economies they are deadly old paradigm thinking.
Of course not. This increasingly powerful class of new money tech plutocrats are not pushing to give power away, they’re pushing to secure more. As Jimmy Stewart’s character says in It’s A Wonderful Life, Potter isn’t selling, Potter’s buying.” https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/universal-basic-income-automation-plutocracy-dystopia-efc14f526037
Consider what that would mean. If you take the dollars targeted on people in the bottom fifth or two-fifths of the population and convert them to universal payments to people all the way up the income scale, you’re redistributing income upward. That would increase poverty and inequality rather than reduce them.
Yet that’s the platform on which the (limited) support for UBI on the right largely rests. It entails abolishing programs from SNAP (food stamps) — which largely eliminated the severe child malnutrition found in parts of the Southern “black belt” and Appalachia in the late 1960s — to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Section 8 rental vouchers, Medicaid, Head Start, child care assistance, and many others. These programs lift tens of millions of people, including millions of children, out of poverty each year and make tens of millions more less poor.
Some UBI proponents may argue that by ending current programs, we’d reap large administrative savings that we could convert into UBI payments. But that’s mistaken. For the major means-tested programs — SNAP, Medicaid, the EITC, housing vouchers, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and school meals — administrative costs consume only 1 to 9 percent of program resources, as a CBPP analysis explains. Their funding goes overwhelmingly to boost the incomes and purchasing power of low-income families.
Moreover, as the Roosevelt Institute’s Mike Konczal has noted, eliminating Medicaid, SNAP, the EITC, housing vouchers, and the like would still leave you far short of what’s needed to finance a meaningful UBI. Would we also end Pell Grants that help low-income students afford college? Would we terminate support for children in foster care, for mental health services, and for job training?
Ed Dolan, who favors UBI, has calculated that we could finance it by using the proceeds from eliminating all means-tested programs outside health care — including Pell Grants, job training, Head Start, free school lunches, and the like, as well as refundable tax credits, SNAP, SSI, low-income housing programs, etc. The result, Dolan found, would be an annual UBI of $1,582 per person, well below the level of support most low-income families (especially working-poor families with children) now receive. The increase in poverty and hardship would be very large.
A good and correct post. However, we are doomed unless every economist and economic pundit quits fiddle faddling around with genuine but separate insights that are aligned with the new paradigm of direct and reciprocal monetary gifting….but are unconscious of that concept and precisely where, when and how to implement it.
Every data point, every reform, every preaching to the academic and chattering class choir moves us a thousandth of a millimeter closer to the goal of monetary freedom, economic stability and ecological survival.
On the other hand communicating the benefits to both the individual and enterprise of the handful of policies, regulations and structural changes of the new paradigm and building a mass movement that herds the political apparatus toward legislating and executing it would integrate the good intentions of all such reform movements and save us from our own apparent lack of survival instincts.