For-profit finance is a parasite. You certainly do not feed a parasite. Reforms while okay, leave us still unconsciously believing that the parasite is a part of our organism.

The only rational and ethical thing to do is excise the parasite and vaccinate-regulate away any of its lingering effects.

No other business model adds costs post retail sale because (currently) retail sale is the terminal ending point of the entire legitimate economic/productive process where production becomes consumption.

A publicly administered non-profit banking and financial system guided and regulated by the relevant aspects of the natural philosophical concept of grace applied to the economy (like monetary gifting in the forms of a universal dividend and a 50% discount/rebate policy at the point of retail sale) will FINALLY get for-profit finance’s money creation off the neck of everyone and every other business model and free the individual and profit making economic systems mostly from themselves. Non-money creating financial services are legitimate and could be easily integrated (and regulated) into the new paradigm and its structures.

If you want the revolt of the bourgeoisie get on the bandwagon of the new monetary and financial paradigm.

The science versus philosophy-social science controversy is just one more dualism that is resolved by the most underlying and significant concept-experience known to Man, and yes that concept-experience is grace.

God-the experience of grace IS NATURAL. It’s also the philosopher’s stone, a mere but mind blowing and yes ecstatic integration of normal internalized egoistic consciousness with the spatial-electro-magnetic flux that is the dynamic, interactive, integrative flow of the present moment. That’s ALL and THAT’S ENOUGH to be the gloriously enlightening experience the world’s various wisdom traditions have long described and prescribed…..and the experience that the vast majority of us have ignored, decried and avoided most of our lives in the less than contemplative cultures we are embedded in and because the paradigm of inquiry is presently Science Only. That’s Only as in monopolistic. INTEGRATE!

Integrate the integrative discipline of Wisdom and Wisdom’s pinnacle concept, i.e. grace as in love in action within yourself and grace’s relevant aspect(s) into whatever body of knowledge-area of human endeavor is under discussion…and flow!

Me: Money, which is one of humanity’s greatest inventions is not the root of the problem, and neither is it capitalism or socialism per se. It’s THE PARADIGM OF FINANCE and the unwillingness and/or inability to think integratively and combine only the particles of truths in apparent opposites.

If the non-comprehenders and/or non-lookers on this blog would read my book they would see that it ends the idiotic and fruitless contention between capitalism and socialism by pitting the self interests of the individual and of enterprise against THE REAL PROBLEM which is finance and its monopolistic monetary and financial paradigm….while simultaneously accomplishing the best aspects of both of those ideologies. Hence it is politically integrative of traditionally opposed constituencies and so much more likely to bear fruit politically, economically and ecologically than obsessively battling viewpoints that are both passe’.

DT: I have seen and answered this argument so often it has become boring. It is not so much I disagree with it as that it misses the point that ‘money’ (while indeed a great invention) is a word whose meaning as changed, and the paradigm of finance with it. The word has become paradoxical: it means opposite things dependent on which meaning you take it to have. To integrate these apparent opposites one has to make the one include the other, and as reality includes words, one needs to stop financiers telling lies by governments making the declared meaning conform to the reality. Money by now is just a number in a computer, not a compact store of value which can be rented out at a profit.

As this blog is about moral philosophy, let us phrase this argument in the language of the Mosaic ten commandments: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour”.

The Christian position is that all these ten commandments are included in the Christian ethic: if you love God and your neighbour you will not want to break them. But the reason for loving God (gratitude) was already implied in the preface to the first commandment: “I am the Lord your God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, and out of the house of bondage”. We are all inclined to forget that now, but it is hardly insignificant.

Me: Sorry Dave, YOU’RE the one missing the point which is that we need to align money creation and its distribution with the relevant economic aspect of the philosophical concept of grace, that is Gifting, and to integrate it into the Pharasitical/Mosaic/ “Ye shall earn thy bread ONLY by the sweat of thy brow” present paradigm and so create a thirdness greater oneness. Such a present time continuous reminder of grace implemented at the point of retail sale and at note signing will do more to self actualize gratitude and so love in action in the temporal universe than all of the preachments ever uttered.

AR: DT sounds like a religious fanatic to me. Is there any other kind? I rejected the notions of sky fairies when I was about 8 years old. And of course, he is illustrating my points about cognition and what we are learning about how humans think and form their multiple bad beliefs.

Religion and belief in god have justified a lot of child abuse throughout history. Not to mention woman abuse. Read some George Lakoff to understand the difference between the strict, authoritarian, punitive, parent who believes discipline (ie often punishment) as the road to success (Republicans but some Dems too) vs the nurturing, kind, understanding parent who teaches rather than punishes.

Me: Inveighing against religion is more a tilting at wind mills kind of habit than doing so against neo-classical economics or the monetary paradigm.

There is such a thing as genuine religious experience and it is nothing more and certainly nothing less than our/your internalized consciousness letting loose of its habitual pre-occupations long enough to directly experience the present moment in all of its infinitesimal, electro-magnetic and spatial glory. It’s utterly natural, rarely experienced in an obsessive figure-figure-figure non-contemplative world and nothing about its naturalness detracts from its wonderfulness.

“Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

Virtually everything people think and feel can be resolved rationally and truthfully if the opposites that come into their minds are couched with the words both & and.

Steve Hummel 12/06/2020

Yes, Science Only IS a monopolistic paradigm for inquiry. Anyone who blatantly contradicts, ignores or distorts science is understandably open to critique, however orthodoxy is one of Man’s worst tendencies and adheres to both sides of any dualism. Science requires the integrative mindset of the dialectic/the thirdness greater oneness of Wisdom….and money, finance and the economy particularly require it.

Thank you all for confirming this fact.

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

Economics, needs an integrative and thus evolutionary mindset, a commitment to an ongoing dialectic that seeks thirdness greater oneness of truths, workabilities and the highest ethical considerations in apparent opposites. In other words the multi-disciplinary mindset of Wisdom.

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

The parable (Man searching for his keys only in the light of a street lamp) is actually most apt regarding the mindset and utilization of analysis itself. If one will only look with the reductionist mindset of science while neglecting or ignoring philosophy, which by the way also includes the set of science, they will be prone to at best palliatives and at worst missing the pattern solution altogether.

The word philosophy means the love of ideas/concepts, and paradigms are single and singularly defining pattern concepts like terra-centrism, nomadism and Debt Only.

New paradigms are the ultimate integrative mental and temporal phenomena that replace the old/present ones…. like for instance helio-centrism, agriculture/homesteading/urbanization and Monetary Gifting.

Let us be aware of and not be afraid to use all of the tools of analysis, lest we stumble around in the light in the corner of a room and never consider that solutions may exist in the unexplored darkness of its entirety.

Direct fiat monetary distribution is an excellent consciousness raising/learning opportunity regarding the need for that new paradigm in the monetary and financial systems.

Me: The entire issue of uncertainty is basically moot. Change/emergence is an aspect of the temporal universe so….okay.

The real issue is whether progress is palliative reform or paradigm changing. But even a paradigm change eventually becomes orthodoxy and problematic.

Now a mega-paradigm/zeitgeist change, the initiator of which Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting is, THAT is really broad and stable progress. There’s only been two, maybe three of those in the entire history of the human species.

Intellectuals, “Ye must become like little children.” That is, let loose of your burdensome and limiting orthodoxies, even your iconoclasm, and consider the integrative thirdness that emerges out of dualing half truths and falsehoods when a new tool or insight is discovered.

Please.

Dave,

What you and others say is all perfectly correct. The only thing it leaves out is the possibility (and historical evidence for) of a dynamic integrative thirdness greater oneness that both underlies and is the natural impetus for evolutionary change.

In essence everyone here is talking about, not of, the wisdom/paradigmatic level of inquiry and analysis, which being the ultimate integrative phenomenon (a single concept that transforms an entire complexity/pattern, i.e. the integration of the mental and the temporal) ….is precisely what everyone here would like to see happen in economic theory and the economy proper.

I also recognize that this a total conversation-stopping viewpoint for the chattering classes whose habituation to problems (point-counterpoint, obsessive dualism) but sometime one needs to “become like little children” and come into present time about these matters…so we can all get on with the business of better survival.

Sorry.

DT:

Craig, I don’t know what you are sorry about, unless it is my having become disappointed by the “total conversation-stopping view point of the chattering classes” here. I could have used baby talk and spoken of the “dynamic integrative thirdness greater oneness that both underlies and is the natural impetus for evolutionary change” as God, or more explicitly the trinitarian God; but that would have been taken as a conversation-stopper by the self-worshippers that I have been trying not to talk down to. Don’t lump me with the others about being “perfectly correct”: we differ at the philosophical level. I’m prepared to accept the possibility that God exists and the more-or-less historical evidence that confirms this; they have accepted that he can’t and rejected the history as fiction. Trying to stay in the conversation, perhaps I am ” talking about, not of, the wisdom/paradigmatic level of inquiry and analysis … [which] is precisely what everyone here would like to see happen in economic theory and the economy proper”. What I am thinking of, though, is the grace of God the Father expressing his lonely love by his energy evolving into us, his children, the concept transforming this energy being first our absence and then today’s story: the prodigal son’s absence as his lack of due gratitude fails to reflect the love of his Father.

So I’ve failed to deliver the ultimate challenge. It’s me that needs to be sorry. Thanks for the warning, Craig.

Me: My use of sorry was actually lightly sarcastic number one, and was aimed at the apparently scientistic and/or otherwise non-comprehenders of the importance of paradigmatic analysis here, not yourself who is at least open to wisdom. I couldn’t care less whether one attributes wisdom/paradigmatic analysis to God or simply to the most underlying nature of the cosmos….only that they try to think through the implications and recognize how utilizing such a mindset has historically been the route to increased knowledge, REAL progress and better survival.

Of course I’m “Johnny one note”, but at least I’m Johnny one note about what the major heterodox reformers are all in agreement about, that is, that the problem revolves around money, debt and banks. I’m just trying to get the otherwise intelligent posters here to focus on THE PARADIGM OF MONEY, DEBT AND BANKS …..instead of yammering on endlessly about lesser and/or ALREADY AGREED UPON assumption problems in economic theory.

To all of you who do not reply to my posts: A troll can be both a bother to the analyst….and a prophet you know.

MC: It is very clear above that what Keen is doing is NOT what Shiozawa is doing. The title of Shiozawa’s book is refuted by Keen: “Microfoundations of Evolutionary Economics.” Shiozawa is arguing he has found the microfoundations for evolutionary economics. Clearly, keen is arguing above is a different animal alltogether: “The fallacy in the belief that higher-level phenomena (like macroeconomics) have to be, or even could be, derived from lower-level phenomena (like microeconomics) … (Keen)” 

Me: An excellent post on the dynamic, interactive, integrative and emergent qualities of the natural philosophical concept of grace. That concept is also the humanly perceptible state of the temporal universe. All one need do is walk around and touch a few walls and ACTUALLY look at objects and their individual characteristics and all of a sudden…satori! Space and objects are an experience not an abstraction and even more enlightening YOU are much more real than just a chattering voice inside your head. It’s the direct integration and experience of the seeming opposite ends of the evolutionary reality except there’s no top or bottom, real or unreal just a unitary flowing natural and cosmic isness.

Do we want an economy that flows freely and is dynamic, interactive, integrative and natural? Well then, model it after the ACTUAL temporal universe reality of grace by taking two of humanity’s greatest tools, money and double entry bookkeeping and creating abundance, including the self reflective balancing proclivities of wisdom and ethics to consciously guide the necessary randomness which is part and parcel of the natural state of temporal reality.

Ah, may we have the serenity of the present moment in the economy….as quickly as possible. 🙂

MC: It is very clear above that what Keen is doing is NOT what Shiozawa is doing. The title of Shiozawa’s book is refuted by Keen: “Microfoundations of Evolutionary Economics.” Shiozawa is arguing he has found the microfoundations for evolutionary economics. Clearly, Keen is arguing above is a different animal altogether: “The fallacy in the belief that higher-level phenomena (like macroeconomics) have to be, or even could be, derived from lower-level phenomena (like microeconomics) … (Keen)” 

Me: The problem is neither Keen nor Shiozawa, nor any other economist for that matter have cognited on the one chink in the paradigmatic armor of Finance. That chink is the fact that money and its creation are most basically accounting and thus must follow its conventions like equal debits and credits must sum to zero. Hence the efficacy of an equal debit and credit monetary and price policy at the point of retail sale. For the umpteenth time that single policy is paradigm changing. Just look at it and its immediate and continuous effects.

Most people probably consider accounting mere bean counting, but it and its conventions are actually a powerful underlying infrastructure of the entire economy. Keen, who IS brilliant, has come to understand some of the importance of accounting and even remarks to that effect. I know I’ve listened to every one of his youtube and patreon videos for the last 10+ years, and yet missing the strategic power of the point of retail sale, also misses the problem and paradigm resolving potentials of the equal debit-credit-accounting convention policy at that point.

Another analogous way of looking at it is there is macro-economics, economic micro-foundations and the even deeper and more underlying facts and effects of accounting.

It’s kind of like Newtonian physics, quantum mechanics and the present search for a new physics (like string theory or a way to explain why the cosmos apparently lacks sufficient mass and yet is accelerating and thus there must be dark energy/dark matter causing it)…except the new insight, which is missed by economists and economic pundits because they are off in thrice removed from present time reality abstraction instead of looking directly at the economic process and its ending point where the insight exists…has already been discovered.

ghholtham: At the level of theory we require equations of motion, if you like, based on plausible aggregation properties of plausible views of human behaviour in particular circumstances. There is no expectation that these would have a “solution” in the form of a stable equilibrium. We need to acknowledge not only the incompleteness of information that makes optimisation not only impossible but actually meaningless and the importance of feasible information flows in the system. And because the economic system is evolutionary conclusions will always be bounded and conditional on particular circumstances. I must have acknowledged many times that I agree with most of Lars criticisms. My frustration is that basic theory of the sort we need will not be constructed by endlessly rehearsing the failings of current text-book orthodoxy.
In my opinion some of the building blocks of a more useful theory are to be found in the work of Herb Simon. See Models of Man, Essays in memory of Herbert A Simon ed Augier and March, MIT Press, available on kindle, for a gentle introduction. At the applied level you can do useful work with a few basic notions and a readiness to get your hands dirty with data but I agree better basic theory is highly desirable.

Me: ghholtham,

“At the level of theory we require equations of motion, if you like, based on plausible aggregation properties of plausible views of human behaviour in particular circumstances. There is no expectation that these would have a “solution” in the form of a stable equilibrium.”

Precisely. As has already been researched by Steve Keen with his Minsky software which dynamically relates the various relevant variables and flows of money. The only thing he’s failed to perceive is the concept of the new paradigm which will invert the present realities of individual monetary scarcity/systemic austerity, namely grace as in abundance and flow/free flowingness.

Once one “grocs” the new paradigm concept all they need to do is find the best way to implement and regulate it so as to prevent the other intentioned/anti-social from attempting to de-stabilize it. Its helio-centrism which resolved 99% of the emergent problems of terra-centrism and then the discovery of the ellipse which polished off the new concept.

So, the monopolistic present paradigm of Debt and Loan Only (terra-centrism) is broken up by integrating Monetary Gifting into the system, and then the rest of the edifice of the mentally thwarting, indirect and obsessive complexities of macro-economics drop back into their actual data point nature with the discovery of the strategically significant points of policy implementation, namely retail sale and note signing. Voila! We can get on with the existential problems of climate change and trying to game the second law of thermo-dynamics by off-planeting the most energy intensive means of production and colonizing the moon.

And while we’re at it we can also realize that “small is beautiful” is really just an aspect and technique for the self actualization of grace as in higher self awareness/consciousness. The better to transition to the potential zeitgeist of Arcadia from Faustian civilization.

Me: “And because the economic system is evolutionary conclusions will always be bounded and conditional on particular circumstances. I must have acknowledged many times that I agree with most of Lars criticisms. My frustration is that basic theory of the sort we need will not be constructed by endlessly rehearsing the failings of current text-book orthodoxy.”

Completely agree. But what we need is a theory of the new paradigm concept in money and finance….that will alter virtually all of the problematic economic issues people on this blog “endlessly rehearse” the failings of current text-book orthodoxy.

The breakthrough realization.