Post To RWER Blog Regarding Paradigm Changes and The Concept Behind Them

How ironic it is that the additional purchasing power enabled by the paradigm changing policies of a 50% discount/rebate at retail sale and also at the point of note/loan signing will actually enable us to eliminate inflation, direct industrial policy toward green products and make possible the mega fiscal projects needed to off planet the most carbon releasing industries. Irony/inversion of present problematic realities has always been one of the primary signatures of paradigm change. That irony is enlightening when one also realizes that:

1) one of the primary aspects of the natural philosophical concept of grace is the resolution of problematic dualisms/conflicts

2) grace is (a) flow and gestalt, (b) the essence of present time reality is the continuous swirl of electro-magnetic emanation that we humans, caught up in our abstract fugues, miss, and (c) every major wisdom tradition preaches either contemplation of one’s own consciousness which is a manifestation of the graceful flow of the physical universe or a direct integration of same with the present electro-magnetic moment

3) the primary consequential effects of every historical paradigm change have always been aspects of the concept of grace

Book suggestion: The Master Game by R. S. De Ropp.

Personal Quote

Ideas rule the individual, and new paradigms, being particularly pungent and significant concepts, change history and progress humanity….forever.   Steve Hummel  06/29/2020

Money Itself vs The Monetary Paradigm

Me:  There is a difference between money itself and the monetary paradigm. Money is a facile, fungible and so excellent tool. The monetary paradigm (as are all paradigms) is a pattern, a cultural phenomenon, and a problematic paradigm that is ripe for changing is always exclusionary and monopolistic. It’s Nomadic Existence Only, Terra-Centrism Only, Sacraments Via The Church Only, Hand Written Communications Only, Physical Storage of Information Only and Debt Only.

If economists and pundits do not analyze money and its effects on the economy from a paradigmatic perspective, THEY MISS THE TRUE MARK AND THEIR ANALYSIS WILL NECESSARILY BE FRAGMENTED AND SHALLOW.

DT:  If Craig will get his head round the idea that what looks like debt to a seller is credit needed by the buyer, then I will disagree with him only to extent of having local rather than central banks keep the accounts of our credit-worthiness, forwarding for government attention only environmentally significant imbalances.

Me:  Dave, I have no problem with Debt itself. It’s the monopolistic paradigm of Debt ONLY along with the common sense understanding that the power that money bestows, guarantees the continual build up of debt and thus debt deflation….that is the problem.

Private creation of money is not a legitimate economic business model because it adds cost post retail sale, and is also a felonious means of domination. Money creation is a legitimate and necessary power of government. It IS true that the power to create money, especially in the form of Debt ONLY, is problematic whether done by private banks or a national banking and financial system….unless of course that money creation is aligned with and firmly guided by the new monetary paradigm of Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting. Grace/graciousness unites and resolves whatever it touches.

Me:   DT: “Craig, you argue that “Private creation of money is” wrong because “Money creation is a legitimate and necessary power of government.”

Actually I said private creation of money is wrong because it adds cost post retail sale. And the reason is because that point is currently the end of the entire legitimate economic/productive process. It is the unconscious knuckling under to the paradigm of Debt Only to legitimize such private financialization past that point.

Furthermore, as I have been posting here for years the new paradigm of Gifting fits legitimately within the current end of the economic/productive process (retail sale) and the second 50% discount at the point of note/loan signing would legitimately extend it to that further point. Systems were made for man, not man for systems.

DT:  “I would say you are thinking of banks and governments as “corporate persons” whereas I see them as real people doing a job and having a right to be paid for it, or if paid, a duty to perform their job.”

Most of those currently employed in finance would be able to work for the new national banking and financial system if they chose to do so. Culturally hide bound theorists undoubtedly complained that the Gutenberg Press would put monks out of work and make them all indolent. Everyone one benefits from a paradigm change. Historically it’s one of the reasons that everyone and everything adapts to a new paradigm, not the other way around.

The policies of monetary gifting are a gigantic assist to the economy and a resolution of the real reason profit making economic systems are failing, namely ever increasing systemic Debt service costs. That’s why the US shipped production to China and will continue to do so to Burkina Faso and ultimately robotically to the moon if it suits the purpose of Finance’s monopolistic paradigm.

Those monks had more time to proselytize and self actualize grace as in love in action, and with an ounce of the self actualized wisdom of the natural philosophical concept of grace becoming a continual part of the temporal universe via the economic process numerous times per day who knows the beneficial effects on homo economicus?

Responses To Posters On RWER Blog

Me:  Alonso,

Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting refers to the actions taking place at the point of retail sale and also at the point of note/loan signing. The merchant gifts the consumer at that point with a 50% discount to their best competitive price for every one of their goods and/or services. That’s the direct part. The reciprocal part is the monetary authority rebating the entirety of the discounted amount back to the merchant so that they can be whole on their margins and overheads. The result is a 100% increase in the individual’s purchasing power, in other words they can now purchase $100 worth of goods and services….for $50, and a $300k home for $150k, and then at note signing the (now national non-profit bank) gifts/discounts the note 50% so every commercial agent is made whole and the consumer purchases the $300k house for $75k.

Historically, the actual operations of paradigm changes have always been elemental, simple and conceptually and temporally inverting of the old/present paradigm for instance nomadic life to homesteading and urbanization. The direct and reciprocal operations at retail sale and at note signing become Debt Only vs Monetary Gifting.

The discount/rebate also aligns with and is seamlessly implemented via the debit-credit nature of double entry bookkeeping/accounting. This is the most basic and powerful nature of the monetary paradigm (accounting) and thus enables huge benefits and a wide variety of policy options that economists say they would like to see occur like lowering the costs of high tech economies, increasing individual income/purchasing power, combatting/eliminating inflation and the incentivizing of ecologically sane economics. Steve Keen, whose de-bunking of DSGE (Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium) is a thorough theoretical work, has since been inching toward realizing the power and significance of accounting in economic theory. He has also called for a new paradigm in economics. The one thing he’s missing is an awareness of the new paradigm concept of Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting and how it fits into the accounting infrastructure that the entirety of the economy is sanely and inextricably embedded in.

The rest of the policies I advocate align with the new monetary paradigm.

DT:  It seems Douglas had got as far as Ed Zimmer and I in seeing two economies, whereas Keynes saw not the circulation of money within the second (FIRE) economy but what I’ve seen and Douglas sought to avoid: it overflowing into unconstrained chrematism (money making). Keynes didn’t say Douglas was wrong: he merely belittled him as a private rather than a major. (Joan Robinson said he always was a tease). Anyway, following Craig back to his primary sources has been rewarding. I found Douglas making sense where Craig’s bowdlerised version doesn’t. But if Craig is not a bot, good for him too, for following Whitehead’s advice to “get hold of the big ideas and hang on to them like grim death”.

Me:  Dave, Far from bowdlerizing social credit theory my innovations take it from a better than neo-liberal but still mere theory…to a paradigm changing set of logically aligned policies.

AK:  I am a bit perplexed about the direct part. If I was the merchant, I would immediately double the “best competitive price” (and that would do all merchants). With the discount the consumer will pay the same price. He looses nothing. But I will get 100% rabat from the monetary authority.
Said another way, if the 50% discount is compulsory and known in advance, then the market price will be negotiated with the discount in mind which makes the discount senseless?
What do I understand wrongly?

Me:  In the first place if a merchant immediately raises his prices by 20+ percent and just one of his wily competitors actually lowers his prices, just how much market share is the anti-social inflating merchant going to lose?, and the road to profit is volume of sales not necessarily profit margin.

Secondly, if everyone’s purchasing power is doubled by the policy and people see the anti-social merchant trying to game the system by eroding their purchasing power is that going to erode that merchant’s good will which is actually the most valuable commodity that any business can have.

Thirdly, if a merchant attempts what you say despite the fact that with the new paradigm he and all of his employees will save because they’ll no longer have to pay transfer taxes for welfare, unemployment or social security because with the $1000/mo. universal dividend that the 50% discount enables you to purchase $2000/mo. ….then who needs or wants to pay for a welfare, unemployment and social security bureaucracy?

Fourth, there will be taxation penalties and ultimately an ending of an enterprise’s rebate privileges if, despite all of the cost savings and income/business revenue in increases, an enterprise continues to inflate without actual cost increases.

Fifth, part of my regulatory program would be to create a new government department named The Department of Competition, Innovation, Boycotting and the Bully Pulpit which will encourage the first two aspects and publicly and very loudly point the finger at anti-social enterprise and also help to organize boycotts of their products and services. Hoist a few corporate heads and their businesses on a pike with this program and you’d likely begin to see rational and healthy appreciation for the benefits of the new paradigm rather than greedy and anti-social idiocy.

Finally, the idea that we have free markets is foolishness. All markets are manipulated and the money market is dominated by the private for profit banks with their monopolistic paradigm of Debt Only which is not only one of the stupidest realities we have endured for over 5000 years it is a glaring contradiction to the acolytes of “free” markets as well, so that critique by them is meaningless and we need mostly ignore it while communicating how beneficial the new paradigm is for every economic agent individual and commercial… long as they remain ethical and appropriately appreciative.

Wisdom/Paradigmatic Thinking

It’s the pattern/paradigm changing SINGLE concept that we need to be searching for. The capitalist/socialist duality, especially at a time when seeming unresolvable problems have lingered for centuries if not millennia, that must be thought outside of.

The banking/money system needs to become a constitutionally arms length, separate and fourth branch of government firmly guided by the concept of the new monetary paradigm and its policies. This is where the founding fathers “dropped the ball”. Domination via money after all was what the revolution was all about.

Post To RWER Blog Regarding Wisdomics-Gracenomics

The problem isn’t so much economics, it’s the monetary paradigm. Change that correctly by basing it on the concept of grace and the deepest problems of the economy will be resolved.

Capitalism’s driving force is power and control, Socialism’s is actually the same. Direct Monetary Distributism’s driving force when aligned with the new monetary paradigm of Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting and its equally aligned policies would be grace as in both benevolence and sovereign power. Grace is the pinnacle concept of every one of the world’s major wisdom traditions, is the unitary power of love in action and is the only concept that, self actualized, can effectively unite the opposites of benevolence and sovereignty. Mankind is shaped by its culture. An economy with its ever present-ness in everyone’s life, based on grace, is precisely the cultural instrument needed to lift humanity out of its long adolescence and enslavement by the paradigm of Debt Only.

Reply To Poster on RWER Blog

DT:  Craig, Norman not being able to distinguish between a panacea (universal medicine) and rebuilding from the foundations up doesn’t unfortunately make your panacea paradigmatic. You haven’t defined what you mean by money, and paradigm change is about reinterpreting what we can already see.

Norman is wrong in thinking economics has a quantification issue, when actually it is where the money is going. You propose dealing with the quantification issue by giving half of it back. Half of what? The debt?

If you reexamine what money is, one finds it has long been Ponzi money: the banks making their profits by selling or renting out non-existent gold and people down the line paying for it with real goods. The banks have lent nothing, so there is no debt to give back. And you are proposing to give nothing? All the banks really do is acknowledge our credit-worthiness.

If you were to understand giving money as giving credit where credit is due, then that is a paradigmatic change with which I could agree. It points to spending our own credit rather than the banks’ (i.e. to credit card finance paid back by doing good with it) as the practical solution you are seeking. Our savings are worth nothing, but up our credit limit. If we don’t do good with what we buy with them they will gradually disappear.

Me:  DT,

Nonsense. I know money and I know what paradigms are and their effects. Money is most basically and importantly accounting, and the current monetary paradigm is Debt Only. That is, virtually all of it is created as only a debt obligation despite the fact such monopolistic nature de-stabilizes the macro-economy with debt deflation. All of the other characteristics of money pale to insignificance by comparison, and utilizing the direct and reciprocal, +,- infrastructure of accounting at retail sale enables the control, direction and benefits of money/credit more than a zillion off target monetary or economic blabberings will ever do.

It’s exactly like I have said on here a hundred times. Pundits talk all around money and whore after the complexities of the economy when the elemental and deep simplicities which are the keys to perceiving and executing paradigms are what is needed.

Grace As In Monetary Gifting: The Unifier of Opposites

“the practical steps to correcting our political economy are relatively obvious. The difficulty lies is getting them through as political programs.”

Correct. That’s why advocating a policy of a 50% discount/rebate at retail sale would be so effective because it unifies the interests of the traditionally opposed political perspectives of labor and management….against the real problem which is the too big to fail banks and their monopolistic paradigm of Debt Only. A 100% increase in purchasing power for the individual is simultaneously a 100% increase in potential business revenue for virtually every business model but finance after all.

And functional finance is really nothing more than the palliation of bank dominance and economic de-stabilization.

Reply to A Poster on RWER Blog

Me:  Sorry Norman, but you’ve fallen into the same complexity traps you (correctly) bemoan. Carping about interest being the sole problem IS monetary crankery. Recognizing that the monopolistic paradigm of Debt Only as the only form and vehicle for the creation and distribution of money is NOT. It (paradigmatic analysis) recognizes that the money cranks have their calculus wrong, but also recognizes that when the power of money and vested interests are stood up against mathematics…mathematics doesn’t matter. Why? Because the wealthiest commercial entities on the planet are financial/money creating ones which shows the economic power of their paradigm. Focus on the real power, the real issue, the real problem…the monetary paradigm. No one here but me has spotted that real problem, analyzed its economic effects and the benefits of changing it. Until one understands and analyzes from a paradigmatic level (which is both conceptually simple and pluralistic as in pattern effects) they are a Ptolemaic analyst.

Monetary Gifting. Too simple for the intellectual vanities of the erudite. Too temporally earth shaking to deny.

Learning vs Wisdom

90% of learning is memorization and addiction to it. Wisdom is being in the present moment and integrating the truths in apparent opposites so that one can actually see and control their own abstractions moment to moment instead of, like Marley’s ghost, them blinding, distracting and weighing you down.