Excessive exporting by domestic enterprise can be discouraged by taxation, and encouraged by tax credits.

With the inversion/transformation aspect of paradigm changes taking effect via the new paradigm virtue (excessive exporting) becomes vice and vice (pouring more money into the economy) becomes virtue. Once the rest of the world sees how prosperous for all agents the new paradigm makes an advanced economy the more they will implement its policies, and export platform nations will not be necessary and neither will their export platform attempts to dominate be tolerated. Hence those economies benefiting from the new paradigm will probably either strategically limit imports or place tarrifs on the offending exports/exporters that are not currently being domestically created.

In other words trade will still take place, but export platformism will be recognized as the vice it is by a more robustly prosperous and stable new paradigm economy. Also, a new paradigm economy would undoubtedly be able to export at a better price than those who have not implemented it, and in order to be both competitive with the price of exports and also to keep their domestic population happy….they will undoubtedly have a lot of incentive….to implement the new paradigm themselves.

Oddly enough the place where the positive effects of the new paradigm could most benefit is probably the EU which is a regional multi-national system analogous in that sense to the world economy. Yes it has export platform nations like Germany and near non-exporting nations (except for immigation as an export) like Greece, but the benefits of the universal dividend and discount/rebate policies will stabilize the monetary scarcity of every nation’s populace and hopefully soften the attitude of the Germans toward exporting dominance and enable re-industrialization of places like Greece.

The whole point is the greatly increased prosperity created by the new paradigm and its policies will be hard to resist copying, and in copying it, the logic and realities of its problem resolving transformation will become apparent….to all.

…hinges on realizing that the current paradigm of debt as in burden only is what is holding us back and that intelligently integrating the new paradigm of monetary gifting into the monetary system will create and transform it and resolve the two biggest problems of the current paradigm of ever increasing debt and price/asset inflation.

…have all of the complexities of the economy and the money system very well understood. I have all of the simple operations that need to take place with policy and regulation….that will usher in a paradigm change in same.

None of the cutting edge economists have yet discovered the natural philosophical concept behind the new paradigm and that’s why they haven’t recognized the policies and regulations that need to be created and implemented. I know what that concept is and what to do with it.

Steve Hummel 03/01/2019

Wisdom is the integrative process of only the truths in seeming opposites, and grace which is love in personal action/systemic policy is its pinnacle concept. Therefore grace is the pinnacle integrative concept of wisdom and is what any system or situation requires to stop and reverse disintegration.

We must choose integration, not disintegration.

Steve Hummel 02/28/2019

Grace is opposition integrated and transcended. Hence it is potentially everything unified and more thoroughly experienced, and so a thirdness greater oneness.

Both secular and spiritual Dualism are usually thought of as being freeing, and yet in important ways they are unnecessarily exclusionary and incomplete. Oddly however, grace can be attained via either, simply by contemplation of its aspects.

Grace as in love in action is the more moral and ethical completeness that frees in every way. It frees one to discern the truth and rightness of every situation and to act accordingly.

Rigid Dualism is delusion and the thirdness greater oneness of grace is truth.

Rob is both right and wrong. Economists generally don’t give moral and ethical considerations their due. That’s because they get stuck at the theoretical level of thought and don’t get to the philosophical level where ideas themselves and ethics are an integral part of its mindset.

He’s wrong in thinking that MMT would necessarily run up debt any more than neo-classical economics. It would probably make it a little less likely and the effects of the build up would probably be less harsh then now.

MMT’s problems are that it focuses too much on governmental debt when private debt is the larger problem. It also believes that it could control inflation which is flimsy at best because the operant cause of “monetary” inflation….isn’t money at all, but rather not having/creating a better alternative to our monetarily austere situation where when commercial agents perceive more money coming into the system they raise their prices in the hopes of garnering more business revenue/available individual income. And that (the better, more beneficial alternative for all agents) is what my Wisdomics-Gracenomics does in spades. Wisdomics-Gracenomics also incorporates a job guarantee into the policy framework as an assist to anyone having problems finding purpose without necessarily putting in their time on a job. Thus it is more an adjunct to the primary and paradigm changing policies of a universal dividend and discount/rebate policies at the point of retail sale. There will be much more employment with a Wisdomics-Gracenomics than any other theory because the investment climate will be so good and stable, but it also enables us to see clearly that employment is only a subset of all positive and constructive human purposes.

Some MMTers who “knock” a universal dividend betray the fact that their theory is largely stuck in the old paradigm of Debt Only for the sole form and vehicle for the distribution of credit/
money.

The bane of human consciousness is duality wed to egotism. Its resolution is the thirdness greater oneness of wisdom and its pinnacle unitary natural philosophical concept of grace. True wisdom includes, encompasses and integrates science.

MMT and the rest of heterodox economic thought are pointed in the right direction. Now what they need to do is commence a study of the signatures of accomplished historical paradigm changes and a thorough exegesis of the natural philosophical concept of grace and see how the operations that define and determine every paradigm change have also been aspects of that concept.

It’s not that difficult a study, and its conclusions thoroughgoingly applied in policy clarifies the path forward for economics.

The truth is, except to confirm that private for profit banking and finance is an illegitimate and de-stabilizing factor in economics (Keen’s and Hudson’s conclusions ….whether or not they fully understand them themselves), macro-economics is largely an unfruitful distraction from much more important insights to be deciphered in micro-economics and the actually productive process, especially at the point of retail sale where a simple algebraic price and monetary policy can be implemented with paradigm changing consequences.

The master-economist must possess a rare combination of gifts …​ He must be mathematician, historian, statesman, philosopher—in some degree. He must understand symbols and speak in words. He must contemplate the particular, in terms of the general, and touch abstract and concrete in the same flight of thought. He must study the present in the light of the past for the purposes of the future. No part of man’s nature or his institutions must be entirely outside his regard. He must be purposeful and disinterested in a simultaneous mood, as aloof and incorruptible as an artist, yet sometimes as near to earth as a politician.

John Maynard Keynes

What a wonderfully correct quote of Keynes. It is correct in every word and is demonstrative of the nature of wisdom as in the integration of the truths in opposites. Of course when you’re one of the originators of a new discipline like macro-economics you inherit a lot of cultural bias and the blinding effects of the current long term paradigm as well. Keynes work was the monetarily indirect fall back position of finance which after the great depression and C. H. Douglas’ Social Credit which with its universal dividend and compensated retail discount was indeed monetarily direct and so a threat to their paradigm of Debt Only. It was also way ahead of its time as heterodox economists have come back to it with QE for the people, UBI and debt jubilees.

Your observation that economists don’t have a good sense of history is also accurate. Several years ago when I mentioned to Steve Keen that Douglas was the first disequilibrium theory he appeared to have no idea who Douglas was despite it being a world wide movement between the world wars, Douglas being a citizen of the British empire and Australia being a part of same and a place where Social Credit took root, albeit a rather religio-fied version of it.

Unfortunately Douglas had a little too much of the tory in him and never really looked at private finance with a totally objective eye, but who else even now has the guts and paradigm perception to call private finance not an actually legitimate economic/productive business model….and not for the reasons it’s normally criticized for? That plus Douglas and his followers since never really recognized the paradigm changing potential of their policies. Well, Kuhn had not written his seminal book yet, so like with so many other things it’s an awareness problem that prevents full vision.

It is virtual certainty that pre-scientific parochial religions are not literally true. It is also evident to any genuine philosopher and person interested in self awareness/consciousness itself that science has become a religion with many if not most who claim the title of scientists. This is partly a cultural problem and probably partly a personal one as the mindset of science tends to habituate mental fragmentation while wisdom/consciousness raising is a holistic process, and it is difficult to deal with one’s cultural roots.

The fact is that wisdom/consciousness raising at its best is an integratively dual process utilizing both the scientific and wisdom perspectives. In fact this integrative nature of both the wisdom process and paradigm perception are exactly the same process. The one personal and general, the other temporal and specific.

Science and religion will conflict or fail to be thoroughly integrated. There is no necessary conflict between science and spirituality.