Author: chdwr

Post To RWER Blog…About The Real Point

Posted by

0

@Ken,

Benedict’s study is interesting both in that she came around to seeing growth as possible and in her use of the concept of the triad/trinity which is present in every area of human endeavor and as aspects of the physical/temporal universe as well. However, growth is a scientific euphemism for wisdom and self actualization/ascension. Man is accurately described by the ancients as homo sapiens, wise and discerning man, and he/she is devolving into homo economicus within the culture of homo scientificus ONLY (sp)

Building a culture on doubt is mistaken. Building one on knowingness/wisdom that of course includes unknowingness as an integral part of being able to actually realize knowingness instead of settling for mere data and computation is what we need to work toward.

KZ:  (To another poster) My main point, though, is that shouldn’t those who claim to have this capacity attempt to link it to some logic, hopefully one that I could comprehend? (This would seem to be a huge methodological advance, of potential benefit to both economics and economies.)” The issue your statement raises is the link must be based on a logic created in a particular culture. Which culture’s logic is the one we should choose? First, the cultures must be integrated so a single useful logic for this task is created. And we’re back to our original issue. How to perform the integration.

Me:  @ Ken,

“The issue your statement raises is the link must be based on a logic created in a particular culture. Which culture’s logic is the one we should choose? First, the cultures must be integrated so a single useful logic for this task is created. And we’re back to our original issue. How to perform the integration.”

I couldn’t have said it better. Integration is the very process of wisdom. It’s time for mankind to mature into a culture of wisdom whose pinnacle concept is grace, i.e. love in individual action, bulwark-ed and encouraged by systems whose policies are logically aligned and based on that same concept. For instance monetary grace as in direct and reciprocal gifting at the point of retail sale.

A Wisdomics-Gracenomics, the first mega-universal-paradigm change since that from hunting and gathering to agriculture, homesteading and urbanization.

The way to know that personally is to contemplate grace. The way to acculturate it is to implement policies aligned with it. And the way to miss having its “road to Damascus” type cognition is to abstract and talk around and about it forever instead of coming into present time and knowing its human and temporal universe reality.

KZ:  Craig, Benedict is considered one of the greatest anthropologists of the 20th century because she, like Margaret Mead, Louis Leaky, Clifford Geertz, etc. opened new cultural institutions and artifacts to study, some very controversial. Such as sexual rituals, race, gender, etc. None invented what they wrote. They reported what they were taught through dialogue and observation by the societies they examined. As for cultures built on mistakes, just about every culture ever recorded is founded on one or more mistakes, viewed from the perspective of other cultures. So, if there are things about cultures that you dislike or disturb you, don’t blame the anthropologists. Blame the peoples who invented each culture. But you can only do that from the perspective of the culture in which your life is situated.

Me:  Wisdom/the highest form and method of self knowledge strips away culture and enables and builds consciousness/self awareness. That’s why zen buddhists say you have to remove even the “breath on the mirror” before you are enlightened and why Vedanta declares “Tat Tvam Asi, thou art that, you are it….and I would simply add that it is also you.
DM:  Ken, What do you mean by ‘integrated’ in this context? (It seems to me that its meaning is very culturally dependent, and I don’t presume to ‘get it’.)
Lacking a meaningful global culture how might we collabrate across cultures. It seems to me that we would want some sort of critical debate, which would seem to me to imply some sort of common ‘logic’. If not, how might we proceeed? Or do we need some kind of global culture, and if so how might we characterise it? And achieve it?

Me:  @Dave at 5:02 pm,The only way to transcend culture is to build/self actualize consciousness/self awareness. Then you become free to live in any culture as you choose to. It’s why the zen Buddhists say: “Before one becomes a novitiate they see that mountains are mountains and streams are streams, and after they have attained enlightenment they still see mountains are mountains and streams are streams they just see them wisely.”

That is fully consciously….not just abstractly/intellectually.

KZ:  Craig, as to the highness or lowness of Wisdom, or Buddhism, I cannot speak. Having no access to such knowledge. But the remainder of this sentence is wrong. From all we know of human history and anthropology going back 200,000 years, humans invented culture as a way to live together, build communities, and give stability and purpose to their lives. No human community, no matter how small since the invention of writing by humans lacked a culture. And archaeologists have shown evidence that human communities going back at least 20,000 years before the invention of writing created cultures. Humans simply can’t survive without culture. So, my interpretation of your remarks is that you prefer the culture Wisdom replace all exiting cultures. High ambition. As, I said in another comment, multiculturalism is the biggest problem facing humans today. Your position is multiculturalism’s issues should be settled by having just one culture for all humans, Wisdom. But this doesn’t transcend culture but ends with all humans as members of only one culture. One culture or a thousand, culture remains the central element for organizing human societies.
Me:  Ken, My post to Dave at September 19, 2019 at 6:14 pm answers your question.
KZ:  Very nice, Craig. But just does one “build/self actualize consciousness/self awareness” since what these are and how we get to them are culturally entangled. In the end, each question and answer comes back to culture. Creating a world culture is certainly possible. But it’s mostly hard work and careful listening, and above all respect for the cultures that might be supplanted. This talk of actualization of self-awareness and consciousness is bunk, in my humble view.

Me:   “Creating a world culture is certainly possible. But it’s mostly hard work and careful listening, and above all respect for the cultures that might be supplanted. This talk of actualization of self-awareness and consciousness is bunk, in my humble view.”Every culture already has a concept of grace as in love in ACTION, so as I said there’s no need to supplant any of them, simply contemplate, deepen/self actualize and ACT on that concept. When the devastating human effects of non-functioning economies and climate change begin to become more and more apparent it won’t be those who contemplated and ACTED with aligned systemic policy that will be blamed but rather those who opposed it or merely engaged in endless intellectual chatter round and about it as the catastrophe loomed. That is the real bunk.

 

KZ:  Craig, having been involved in hundreds of policy struggles let me say that in each case there were hundreds of dots that had to be connected, negotiations that required patience and listening skills, and more than a few threats. The only contemplation involved was about the law, what was fair for all stakeholders, and dealing with greed and envy. And the actions involved were measured, stop-and-go, and tentative till a final resolution. And even final resolutions are never final, really. And we engaged in little “endless intellectual chatter,” except at times by the judges and other decision makers (elected and appointed). These actions and institutions are what Trump and his minions call the “deep state.” It is they that daily protect American rights and defend American freedoms. Trump’s attacks on these actions and institutions is a direct attack on these rights and freedoms. Craig, I don’t see how what you offer helps achieve any of this. Especially in these times of great threat.

Me:  Well Ken you have the disadvantage of having negotiated within the current paradigm of Debt Only for the sole form and vehicle for the distribution of credit/money….which contradictorily assumes monetary scarcity and price and asset inflation are immutable realities.

Fortunately Abundantly Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting at the point of retail sale mathematically, empirically, immediately, stably, individually and commercially de-bunks those orthodoxies.

When you can offer real and permanently progressive solutions for all stakeholders in a negotiation (except perhaps for one illegitimate business model who everyone already loves to hate because they know in their heart of hearts that it “owns the joint”, read dominates and manipulates with the current paradigm) it makes those negotiations and policy choices a helluva a lot easier.

But then, what are mega paradigm changes for except to change entire cultures/patterns?

KZ:  Craig, I’ve helped to negotiate many win-win-win settlements. So your paradigm change isn’t essential, in my view. But things would be much easier, fairer, and beneficial for all involved if all parties in negotiations knew and followed the rules, negotiated in good faith, and if not in good faith were held to account by elected members of government and ultimately each ordinary person. Since I have no idea of how your direct and reciprocal monetary gifting at the point of retail sale will work out in practice, I can’t say if it will improve this situation. The result depends a lot on how the changes are made and through what institutions. As things stand now neither major political party could champion such changes. Neither could any institution of existing governments. Religious institutions are out. As is the judiciary. Your proposed changes may be stymied by the existing cultural wars, and the coming intensification of those wars. So, sit tight, This is not a good time to be a reformer in America.
Me:  The present institutions cannot be relied upon to see the new paradigm. I recognize that, although it is so obviously beneficial for both the individual, students and the small to medium sized business community that those are the equally obvious very large constituencies that we need to communicate it to. In other words it’s fruitless to try to create change preaching to academia or large elite controlled organizations. What is required is a bottom up individual consumer/worker/student/business community mass movement not unlike Gandhi’s and MLK’s….because it is so beneficial for all of those.
DT:   Craig, the implication of your philosophy being more “naturalistic” is surely that it is less human?The acronym PID stands for the mathematical terms Proportional, Integral and Differential, which if you are not familiar with the differential calculus you can hardly be blamed for not understanding. There is however a subtlety in that numbers can represent directions as well as quantities, as in the direction of a hand on a clock which counts the hours. Fairly obviously, this is the normal form in the mathematics of circuits and circulation; it is highly significant in synchronising multiple processes happening on related timescales like the rotation of the second, minute, hour and day hands on a clock. In this form integration moves the hand forward through a right angle, differentiation moves it back, both together leave its direction unchanged, and two of either leave it pointing in the opposite direction.

Because this is so unlikely to be familiar I have repeatedly used the term PID, hoping to make it so and tempt curious readers to look it up. However, I’ve also repeatedly explained how its concepts work out in the real world context of navigation, which is all about travelling in the intended direction. The captain, off-line, sets the intended course; the steersman corrects momentary errors in direction by adjustments Proportional to the size of the error; the second officer periodically adjusts the course to compensate for the Integral of positional errors due to tides, winds etc accumulated over time, and the look-out may signal a need for a Different course to avoid approaching danger (c.f. an investor moving funds out of a failing business); which however takes one off the intended course. If that happens to be providing for the needs of mankind, it will require a Keynesian Integral (more maintenance, precisely not more money making) to correct it.

And no, I haven’t “accepted the DSGE/”no free lunch” libertarian viewpoint on macro-economics…instead of the inherently cost inflationary and hence monetarily scarce reality of high tech capital intensive macro economics”.

PID, as a little thought about the navigational example I have given will clearly show, is not a “macro” viewpoint but a “logic” one, i.e. a logic of processes rather than words. As such it applies to all and even (as a concept) to none. The logic of navigation applies just as much to sailing a dinghy as steering a ship of state.

Your “DSGE/no free lunch” quibbles are interesting enough to be worth responding to. Yes, the errors the navigator is correcting may for theoretical purposes be thought of as random (though in practice they are only so on a macro weather scale). And in the long term there is no free lunch. If one doesn’t correct errors due to avoidance action one will lose one’s bearings and run out of food or fuel before arriving at one’s destination.

In practical terms my position is much nearer Schumacher’s “Small is Beautiful” (derivative from Ruskin’s “Unto This Last” and “Crown of Wild Olive” and Chesterton’s “Outline of Sanity”) than to Smith’s “money making by mass production”. I would add the need for local PID feedbacks to make possible and therefore reasonable the voluntary control of population. The concern is the making of men, not (in both senses) making the most of them.

Me:  Thanks for the reply Dave. I would assert that the philosophical concept of grace, being the supreme spiritual value of love in action and an all encompassing, integral and unitary mindset provides the guidance and the insight for both the individual and for systemic policies.

My gracious naturalism is an integration of those supposedly opposing concepts. When in doubt integrate….and keep on integrating. Integration is the PID/process of wisdom whose ultimate personal and temporal state is grace/graciousness.

Must Pay Half of Income Tax Rates

Posted by

0

Income taxes can be drastically cut in a directly distributive pure fiat money system. However, deduction abuses in the tax system is all too often a reality. Thus instead of paying 21% corporate income tax you would have progressive rates of say 5% for $0-500,000 profits, 7.5% for $501-$2,000,000 profits and 10% for over $2,000,000 profits, However, when the corporation’s taxable income reaches zero all management are assessed half of the lowest corporate rate in addition to their individual income tax rate.

Everyone pays far less than now, but everyone indeed does pay. An aspect of grace is sovereignty after all.

Posted To a Thread By Ellen Brown On Truthdig

Posted by

0

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.

Posted To A Thread on RWER Blog

Posted by

0

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: The Good and The Bad

Posted by

0

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.

Personal Quote

Posted by

0

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

Personal Quote

Posted by

0

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

Post About Nationalizing The Money System and The Philosophical Concept of Grace On Ellen Brown’s Forum

Posted by

0

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.

But what banking institution did he forsee to create the money for public use?  Obviously not the Credit Authority, which simp[ly woulod have the job of working out how much.   Treasury?
I don’t remember finding this in any of his writings or in discussion.
Many central banks, especially in British Commonwealth countries, are publicly owned now.
In NZ, we advocate using our (cleansed) Reserve Bank for the purpose and an independent arm of it as the Credit Authority. .Prtobably its present Debt Management Office would take  a Credit Management function.  Our first labour Govt. very successfully used R B funding.
However, the USA “Fed.” ssems to be in a totally different class, and this group is, of course, mainly cponcerned with that scene.

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.

A truly national banking, financial and monetary system IMO will need to be a fourth branch of government in order to best prevent the idiot political, economic and human psychological prejudices from unduly influencing it that will unfortunately be with us in perpetuity.
Besides that the way to keep the money system (and any and all other systems) free and ethical will be to make damned good and sure that its policies, regulations and structures are aligned with the philosophical concept of grace which is the pinnacle concept of human wisdom/integrative thought, namely love in action, and policy is the action of systems of course. Grace is not namby-pamby nonsense. Any concept that can successfully encompass and integrate both love and sovereignty is both ethical and practical….you just have to contemplate its aspects long enough to self actualize them.

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.

No man is infallible, but there must have been hundreds of thousands of managers, consultants etc.  who dealt with the sort of data he did.  He was the only one brilliant enough to detect the fault in the economic system that was the cause of many problems.  He predicted accurately the recessions of the 1020’s and 30’s.
He presented a well thought out plan to counter the problems, not just a vacuous series on semi-meaningless phrases and irresponsible promises.

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.

 
The regressive forces of Douglas’s day said the exact same kind of things about his insights. 
 
Derision is one of the primary indications that the orthodox (of even a superior theory) have failed to grasp wisdom and so have unconsciously succumbed to their own enemy’s tactics. 

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.

Second, he wants to weaken the dollar.
Third, he wants to increase the size of the tariffs, and wants a rate cut to help businesses to weather the tariff escalation.
However, Trump also appears to be blinking on trade, wanting an interim agreement. But even that is not confirmed. China succeeds if their businesses move elsewhere. The profits still roll in and it helps belt and road.
We will suffer inflation if the economy slows and tariffs go up. The Chinese will save money buying their own products in place of US imports.
The Chjnese have savings while our people are in debt. We can’t possibly win the trade war.

Me:  Tarrifs are not only a losing game for high cost technologically advanced non-export platform economies they are deadly old paradigm thinking.

Why not reduce costs and double individual purchasing power with a policy that eliminates any possibility of price and asset inflation (the 50% Discount/Rebate policy at retail sale) which will additionally allow us to re-industrialize in the most efficient, productive and ecologically sane way possible. Then very quickly the Chinese and every other export platform nations will have to go exploit elsewhere….or (horrors) copy the new paradigm and free their populace as well.
Freedom. It’s a scary concept to those conditioned to slavery and tyranny.
S:  What does it mean when we have numerous billionaires jumping on the social credit bandwagon? Should we suppose they have suddenly discovered a soft place in their cold capitalist hearts for the downtrodden masses? I think not. If this happens, I guarangodamnedteeya it won’t be what people imagine. This will be a cover to eliminate social programs, and it will end up redistributing yet MORE wealth upwards, and increasing poverty at the bottom.

 
“Do you know who supports the implementation of a UBI besides Andrew Yang? Billionaires. Lots of billionaires, especially the new money tech billionaires who are positioning themselves to inherit the earth in the transition to a new paradigm dominated by automation and artificial intelligence. Billionaires like Jeff Bezos, Pierre Omidyar, Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Elon Musk, Richard Branson, Bill Gross, Tim Draper, and more moderately Bill Gates have all been seen advocating for a policy that is now being popularized as one which would level the economic playing field and take power away from the billionaire class.Now why would that be? Why would a group of people who’ve clawed their way up to positions of immense wealth control, enabling them to live as modern-day kings, be so eager to suddenly give away that power? Why would they break with the trend we’ve consistently observed in rulers since the dawn of recorded history and voluntarily relinquish the power they fought to claim without a fight? Are billionaires just naturally good people inherently predisposed to compassionate action and wealth redistribution? Have we been wrong about Jeff Bezos being a real-life supervillain this entire time?

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

“UBI’s daunting financing challenges raise fundamental questions about its political feasibility, both now and in coming decades. Proponents often speak of an emerging left-right coalition to support it. But consider what UBI’s supporters on the right advocate. They generally propose UBI as a replacement for the current “welfare state.” That is, they would finance UBI by eliminating all or most programs for people with low or modest incomes.

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.[1] 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.[2] 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.

Me:  Do billionaires know there own interests? Of course. Are there cabals and cartels in major industries? Of course. But most grand conspiracies are actually just the accumulation over time of systems designed to keep the very wealthy in control. In order to end elite control you have to change the paradigm, the entire pattern. Reforms are incapable of doing that.

How do we finance UBI (which is not aligned with abundance as basic is just another word for scarce)? Screw taxation, you do it with direct monetary distributism implemented and stabilized by making its major policy a 50% discount at the incredibly powerful point of retail sale. This immediately doubles everyone’s purchasing power and ends any possibility of inflation in one fell swoop because retail sale is where production becomes consumption….and no one can force you to pay more for something after retail sale (except the banks of course) because if possession is 90% of the law I guarantee you consumption is 99.99 percent of economics.  Has anyone here ever gone to the store and bought $100 worth of groceries and then when they got home got a call from the manager of the store who said, “Hi, the front office just said that inflation went up 30% so please don’t eat those carrots and whatever you do don’t use the toilet tissue ’cause it’s real hard to reshelf….before you give us another $30. Thanks, have a nice day.  No. Never. Because retail sale is not only the terminal ending point of the entire economic/actually productive process it is also the terminal summing point for all costs and so prices including profit and finally is also the terminal expression point for any and all forms of inflation. So if you now make $40k you can now purchase $80k worth of goods and services, or maintain your current $40k lifestyle on $20k and save $20k which when you spend it will purchase $40k worth of goods and services. And with a $1000/mo universal dividend you get $2000/mo. or $24k of additional purchasing power. A married couple with two 20/hr per week part time jobs at $9/hr would make $180/wk x 2 people = $360/wk x 2 with the 50% discount at retail sale = $720 x 4 wks/mo. = $2880/mo + $2000/mo. universal dividend x 2 = $4000/mo = a total of $6880 worth of purchasing power/mo. or $82,560 of purchasing power/yr.
Inflation? Nope. If you look at garden variety “monetary” inflation it has always been a small single digit percentage point except during and after wars or only after the price of the most important commodity of present civilization, oil, has been arbitrarily jacked up (which means it was actually cost inflation not “monetary” inflation as its cause).
Modern high tech economies are very costly operations hence they can’t afford to raise their prices except a few percentage points without fear of losing market share. And Ellen you know that hyper inflations never occur without specific disastrous circumstances happening first and only after a compliant central bank leverages up speculators who short the currency.
A DIRECTLY DISTRIBUTIVE $1000/mo universal dividend and a 50% Discount/Rebate policy at retail sale integrates beneficial price and asset inflation into profit making economic systems…..and it actually allows us to cut both transfer and individual income taxes for virtually everyone which will enable us to integrate the normally opposing constituency of the small to medium sized business community onto labor’s side. That’s a pattern change not a measly little reform.
And once you’ve shown how universally beneficial strategically implemented direct monetary distributism is….you can expose the private for profit banking system as the completely unnecessary parasite it actually is. Then you can implement a NATIONAL publicly administered NON-PROFIT financial and monetary system and implement an additional 50% Discount/Rebate policy at the point of note signing making a $300k house costing only $75k at 0% interest, a $40k battery powered auto $10k and $40k worth of solar panels also $10k.
The truth is both cut throat capitalism and re-distributive socialism are passe’. You just have to look at how to implement the thirdness greater oneness of Directly Distributive and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting….and the scales fall from your eyes.

Posted To RWER BlogRegarding Wisdom/Integration

Posted by

0

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.

Post To RWER Blog…About The Real Problem

Posted by

0

The real economic problem is much worse and much more insidious than simply DSGE and its rational expectations etc. etc. fallacious assumptions. It’s the long term 5000 year old assumption that private or publicly controlled finance and its equally long paradigm of Debt Only as the sole form and vehicle for the distribution of money. It is like breathing. We/re normally unconscious of it until like 2008 we can’t breathe/finance all of a sudden and it comes home to us in a panic how important breathing/a more than adequate amount of money is continuously available for exchange.

Keen nailed it with his de-bunking of DSGE and Hudson is spot on in his identifying finance as a huge parasite on the rest of the actually productive economy…IT’S JUST THAT THEY DIDN’T KNOW HOW TO PROCEED IN TRANSCENDING BOTH CAPITALISM AND SOCIALISM WITH ABUNDANTLY DIRECT AND RECIPROCAL MONETARY DISTRIBUTISM AT THE POINT OF RETAIL SALE….and of course a relative handful of further regulations and a structural change or two..

How many times do we have to beat the dead steed of DSGE etc. and keep droning on with our particular (correct) social science insights?

“It’s the monetary paradigm, stupid.”, the insight of the policy power point of retail sale with a 50% Discount/Rebate monetary policy there and the ultimate integrative philosophical concept of grace as in monetary gifting leading and guiding the consequently transformed economy.