2-1 Trillion Dollar Coins vs The 50% Discount/Rebate Policy

The two 1 trillion dollar coin idea is a less effective reflection of the 50% discount/rebate policy. Why? Because with the perceived new money coming into the economy (which in reality is actually an inadequate amount even if it completely equals the present amount of demand) corporate decision makers WILL tend to raise their prices in order to increase their business revenue. This will get the libertarian and conservative right yapping on and on about inflation and then you’ll have to fight the monetary fight we’ve done for centuries if not millenia. Because the 50% discount at the terminal ending point of the economic process completely eliminates any possibility of inflation (which means it’s where production becomes consumption/economic possession which means no further costs can be added to it) we can avoid all of that, enable people and policy makers to awaken to the universal benefits of the policy for individuals and businesses, how the policy also enables huge transfer and individual and corporate income tax reductions, combined with a universal dividend immediately ends poverty and also enables us to create a green consumer products upswell and a fiscal expansion of funding to fight climate change. That’s all.

Would love to see Trump embrace Tlaib, but given that Trump is the poster child for the abuse of the present financial paradigm and Tlaib is probably terminally dedicated to re-distributive taxation…I’m not holding my breath.

Of Paradigms Natural and Unnatural, Old and New

Natural monopolies like water and electricity need to be broken up and regulated. UNnatural monopolies like money even more so because it is such a facile tool and has such ability to warp and/or disrupt exchange, which incidently effects everyone, and so shows the power and control it has on….everyone.

Structural monopolies are bad enough, but when you have a pattern/paradigmatic monopoly like the current monetary and financial paradigm of Debt ONLY the problem is much more subtle, unconscious and manipulable. Conversely however, because paradigms ARE patterns new ones have tremendous power to change things for the better.

Grace: The Present Time Natural Everything Reality

Grace is the human focused and heightened awareness state that enables us to sense the flux reality present in each moment around us. It is a unitary, natural and ecstatic experience available at any moment simply because it is, it exists, it is from whence we have evolved and can now sense it if we only open ourselves to it and look around until we see/sense it.

Steve Hummel 03/11/2020

Posts on RWER Blog Regarding the Wisdom Concept of Grace

Me:  You can argue forever and a day about the merits and shortcomings of Capitalism and Socialism. Or, you can find the most efficacious way to implement monetary gifting and the economic system it would create, namely Direct Monetary Distributism.

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

Me:  Hunting and gathering was much more secure and abundant than cave dwelling or whatever was the reality before hunting and gathering, but agriculture was much more secure and abundant than hunting and gathering. Otherwise we wouldn’t have changed to AG, homesteading and urbanization.

And direct monetary distributism will be much more secure, abundant and aligned with wisdom….because it is aligned with the natural philosophical/wisdom concept of grace.

By FINALLY unifying economics with the wisdom of the concept of grace, which is the pinnacle unitary concept behind every one of the world’s major wisdom traditions, we’ll much more likely to have the Wisdomics we so sorely require.

“In the final analysis, economics is a study of mankind in the ordinary business of life.”

Exactly. And that is also why the new paradigm in money and finance will become only the second mega paradigm change in human history.

You can run from a mega paradigm change, but you cannot hide from it.

KZ:  “Since hunter communities were so successful economically and in other ways, are there somethings we can learn from them to help reorganize failing economies and societies today? Particularly in the US. I believe there are.”

Me:  Do an exegesis of the many aspects of the wisdom concept of grace. It’s the ultimate guidepost.

MC:  There are historically closer examples of how to evolve more sustainable economic relations than hunter gatherers and far more realistic I think. David Ruccio’s RWER post Abraham Lincoln and the road to despotism is a good place to start.

Me:  Actually not correct. As I have pointed out here numerous times before there has only been one mega paradigm change, which is a paradigm change that has major “knock on” effects in areas of human endeavor/bodies of knowledge (scientifically developed or not) other than the specific area that the new paradigm applies to. And that was the change from H & G to Ag, Homesteading and Urbanization.

The signature of a mega paradigm change is its immediacy and continuous-ness of effect…for literally everyone. And a monetary, financial and hence economic paradigm change fits that description perfectly, so H & G is the perfect example.

If we hadn’t discovered Ag etc. we’d probably still be propitiating the great god mugjub who lives up the yap-yap river. And if we don’t cognite on the mega paradigm change of Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting….the human race could end up in precisely that same situation.

KZ:  If early agriculture were organized along the same lines as hunter-gatherer communities you would be correct. However, with domestication of animals and plants came greater abundance, and, not curiously, the notion that needs are great and always growing, while resources to meet those needs are always inadequate (scarce). And the fight for control of resources began.

Me:  You’re correct that Ag, homesteading and urbanization despite being a mega paradigm change also led on to the excesses, imbalances and out ethics of capitalism, but like everything else economics and anthropology are in process and finding the most underlying process will enlighten the way forward with the least error and ethical missing of the mark.

The beneficial aspects of every historical paradigm change have always and always will be aspects of the natural philosophical concept of grace, and paradigm change is simply the process of becoming more consciously aware of that concept toward the even more laborious mental process of a change in zeitgeist. The current zeitgeist is Power/Otherness, the next one will be Grace/Unity and the new monetary and financial paradigm will be the second mega paradigm change in human history and hence the most progressive toward the goal of change in zeitgeist.

(several back and forth posts between two posters regarding the duality of capitalism vs socialism)

Me:  You’re both correct in your observations, however, Capitalism vs Socialism is simply the longstanding and now obsessively contentious dualism standing in the way of the new monetary and financial paradigm/thirdness greater oneness of Gifting and hence also the process of going from the zeitgeist of Power/Otherness to Grace/Unity.

When in doubt integrate the truths, workabilities, applicabilities and highest ethical considerations of opposites….and keep on integrating.

The Underlying Problem

The underlying problem with money and finance is and always has been its paradigm of Debt ONLY, that is lending ONLY. Forget about public debt, its a side show for pols to demagogue and a very small percentage of total PRIVATE and INDIVIDUAL debt which debt is the real cost inflationary problem, and it could just be continually turned over especially at the current low rates or at 0% if we had a real national banking system.

You could pour virtually as much money as monetary gifting, which is the new paradigm, into the economy for fiscal projects and to guarantee everyone a better than middle class income….IF YOU HAD A 50% DISCOUNT/REBATE POLICY AT THE POINT OF RETAIL SALE. The discovery of the power and the potential monetary policy significance of the point of retail sale is the telescope, ellipse, agriculture and moveable print of economics and money systems. And with a few regulations with teeth, tax incentives, tax disincentives and a moral authority to scorn any greedy and anti-social gamers you could stabilize the new paradigm and make it the new third rail of politics.

Personal Quote

Endlessly ruminating over details already resolved by new insights is the epitome of rigid orthodoxy and the definition of paradigm duncery.

Steve Hummel 03/05/2020

Post To RWER Blog Regarding Econometrics

LS:   Gerry, you write “the more qualifications are attached to a theory the more data you need to test it.” But that sure doesn’t solve the basic problem. As one of the founding fathers of modern econometrics — Trygve Haavelmo — himself wrote:

“What is the use of testing, say, the significance of regression coefficients, when maybe, the whole assumption of the linear regression equation is wrong?”

Real-world social systems are usually not governed by stable causal mechanisms or capacities. The kinds of ‘laws’ and relations that econometrics has established, are laws and relations about entities in models that presuppose causal mechanisms and variables — and the relationship between them — being linear, additive, homogenous, stable, invariant and atomistic. But — when causal mechanisms operate in the real world they only do it in ever-changing and unstable combinations where the whole is more than a mechanical sum of parts. Since statisticians and econometricians — as far as I can see — haven’t been able to convincingly warrant their assumptions as being ontologically isomorphic to real-world economic systems, I remain deeply sceptic of the whole enterprise. You write “shouldn’t we try?” My answer to that question is the same as Keynes’ (re Tinbergen): “Newton, Boyle and Locke all played with alchemy. So let him continue.”

Me:  “Real-world social systems are usually not governed by stable causal mechanisms or capacities. The kinds of ‘laws’ and relations that econometrics has established, are laws and relations about entities in models that presuppose causal mechanisms and variables — and the relationship between them — being linear, additive, homogenous, stable, invariant and atomistic. But — when causal mechanisms operate in the real world they only do it in ever-changing and unstable combinations where the whole is more than a mechanical sum of parts. Since statisticians and econometricians — as far as I can see — haven’t been able to convincingly warrant their assumptions as being ontologically isomorphic to real-world economic systems, “I remain deeply sceptic of the whole enterprise. You write “shouldn’t we try?” My answer to that question is the same as Keynes’ (re Tinbergen): “Newton, Boyle and Locke all played with alchemy. So let him continue.”

The point of retail sale is where production becomes consumption, and hence is a terminal ending, summing and economic factor expression point. It is also hence a potentially paradigm changing price and monetary policy point for both the economy and the monetary system. The point of exchange is such an integratively woof and warp part of the economic process that, like breathing, most are unconscious of its power and significance.

It’s true that econometrics, like virtually all studies that precede paradigm changes, is largely an alchemical pursuit, but then the single concept of the new pattern sweeps all of the suspended complexities, perplexities and erudition aside.

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

Me:   Y:  “If some fields of mathematics are found to be insufficient to treat a group of problems, what we should do is to construct a new theory that can be applied for them.”

“In the same vein, if econometrics is incomplete, it is necessary to device a new theory (not a theory on econometrics) which opens a new mode of understanding or explaining economy.”

Excellent insights. Perhaps what we require is the econometrics of Paradigmology which looks for the deeply acculturated irrational and de-stabilizing conceptual essence parading itself as necessary. Like for instance that only private money creation and only in the form of debt is legitimate, when in fact private for profit money creation isn’t a legitimate economic business model at all and is actually a disguised form of domination and felonies waiting to happen.

How ironic that we can recognize that rational expectations is an invalid economic assumption and yet fail to see the above irrational expectation regarding private finance and its monopolistic paradigm. But then increasing ironies is an imminent signature of the need for paradigm change and its reflective dualistic phenomenon i.e. reality inversions, an aspect of historically accomplished ones.