It can be with “Chinese characteristics” and respect certain cultural norms with wherever it is implemented so long as it clearly benefits the individual and makes economies more prosperous, stable and self sufficient, and so both makes their economies more robust and reduces the need to be either an export platform or a reserve curreny manipulator. Thus trade barriers and tensions between nations could be reduced.  Regardless, the current financial regime and paradigm must not be allowed to block the new paradigm or foment tensions as the process continues internationally.

Wisdom is the integration of the truths, workabilities, applicabilities and highest ethical considerations of apparently opposing perspectives, and its pinnacle concept is grace in its many definitions and aspects.

Hence, let us have a Wisdomics/Gracenomics and its new paradigm of Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting that not only aligns with, enables and defines the new zeitgeist in economics, but also greatly advances the process of integrating the concept that has historically always been behind every human paradigm change and will usher in the orders of magnitude advancement of a new general zeitgeist, the natural philosophical concept of grace.

I know this will probably not be well received or completely understood, but it’s the time to say it. Social Credit is only a reform/theory like Keynesianism or neo-liberal economics both of which also being only reforms/theories have changed and will be changed. To be sure it is a far superior and more insightful theory than any other mere economic theory and in fact it is as Douglas said, ” “a policy of a philosophy” and if WW II had not intervened I believe it may have won the day economically and the rest of the 20th century would probably have been much less stressful and so likely much less bloody. So it is superior, mostly because the philosophical concept underlying it is absolutely stellar. But it was also much more empirical and scientific than all of the abstract falderal that economic theories usually fall into, mostly because Douglas being an accountant and efficiency expert recognized double entry bookkeeping as the underlying infrastructure for all of commerce and that the pricing, money and accounting systems were all digital, that is equal amounts of payments and prices, debits and credits sum to zero. Hence the compensated retail price.

But Social Credit still did not completely break free from either the current economic theories it arose from or from its current cultural paradigms. It recognized that Debt Only was the current paradigm and that monetary grace as in gifting was the new one and that was huge, but it still fell back into the erroneous idea of general equilibrium which led to most of its adherents clinging to a mere static/statistical filling of “the Gap” instead of making it overflow and hence not only creating a truly free flowing state of the economy but raising the theory to a paradigm changing inversion of the problematic duality of the scarcity ratio of total individual incomes generally available to spend to total costs and so prices.

Abundant Inversion/transformation is probably the primary signature of paradigm changes…in this case individual monetary scarcity to abundance….precisely like the small minded egocentric terra-centrism to the expansive scientific understanding of helio-centrism, the circumstancial uncertainty of nomadism to the more secure individual abundance of agriculture and homesteading, the time consuming and slow process of handwriting to the abundant ability to communicate via mechanical printing and the dominating and indirect monopoly on the sacraments that the Church demanded to a direct and personal relationship with God of The Reformation.

So even though it was a far superior theory as per above it still remained a theory…not the permanently progressive event known as a paradigm change…..and this is mostly by not having as fully fleshed out an understanding the natural philosophical concept underlying Social Credit itself…grace. Grace is abundance, freedom/free flowingness, the ultimate wisdom/integration of the truths in a duality so much so that a thirdness greater oneness arises out of that twoness.

Finally, because Social Credit did not rise to the level of paradigm change it was not able to fulfill its actual philosophical legacy and help to further rise to the level of new ethic/zeitgeist, that is, from the current one of the egocentric will to profit and power via systems and data-knowledge and make the transition to the new zeitgeist of the direct personal/experiential will to freedom via the integrative contemplation of the truths in opposites known as Wisdom, again, whose pinnacle concept is grace.

you have to study Wisdom….until its an integrative conscious part of you. As Grace, or whatever other word you hang on it, is the pinnacle concept and experience of Wisdom according to all of the world’s major wisdom traditions, the place to start and end would logically be the contemplation of its many freeing and empowering aspects.

Data is information. A theory is an aglomeration of related ideas. One’s mind is a pattern, an habitual pattern. A paradigm is consciousness of a new more integrated idea and its pattern. An ethic or zeitgeist is a conscious or unconscious, integrated or fragmentary understanding of the aspects of the concept behind even the paradigm.

The definition of Wisdom and its very process is the thorough integration of only the truths in apparently opposite concepts and/or perspectives.

A paradigm is a peculiar thing in that it is simultaneously a single new concept/thought that policy wise also seamlessly integrates into the area/areas of human endeavor that the paradigm takes place within/changes. In other words it is a new and significantly deep integration of the opposites of thought and policy. Thus it mirrors/fits the definition and process of Wisdom itself.

A study of paradigm changes and of Wisdom/Wisdom traditions not only results in wisdom, but also a much fuller understanding of both the signatures of paradigm changes and the ability to better perceive paradigms both old/current and new. And finally, this is good because paradigm changes are great and permanent progressions, because current paradigms being habitual are hard to think outside of and because knowing the signatures of paradigm changes can help us garner the knowledge to more quickly perceive new paradigms and develope the tremendously valuable integrative mental habit of Wisdom as well.

Yes, the conservative kant against deficit spending is stupid and regressive, but the blythe liberal orthodoxy that you won’t get inflation if you run large government deficits is equally kant.

Why is this? It’s because monetary inflation is a misnomer. Cost inflation is ever present number one, and “monetary” inflation is almost entirely assured because money is not the operant factor, but rather the complete commercial-human freedom to inflate within a chaotic system where there is no barrier on either the lower bound of cost or the upper bound of price.

If MMTers and other economists do not recognize this, even if MMT and other positive changes take place inflation will become a problem and regressive critics will be able to revert those reforms the same as Keynesianism was morphed into the neo-classical “synthesis”.

The only way to insure not only no inflation, but actually have the further benefits of  price deflation is to implement the policies of the new paradigm of Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting intelligently and integratively into the economy. That would be a paradigm change and historically there has never been a reversion of a new paradigm.

E:  All of the interest extracted from the money supply for the interest payment is effectively restored to the money supply, by a variety of routes.

Me:  This is not true even under the most ideal circumstances or conjectures. Money pooling, rentiering, ever rising depreciation costs, and numerous other moment to moment extractions of the flow of money from the economy like re-investment of savings and profit back into the economy introduce time lags/flows and flows of additional costs to the economy. Add to this the increasingly disruptive and erosive effects on aggregate demand of technological innovation and AI and also the entirely obvious outsized revenue of the business model of finance and it should be obvious that the only actual solution to the mess of the current paradigm of Debt Only is the new financial, monetary and economic paradigm of Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting.

Positive Money’s idea of returning monetary sovereignty to the state is an essential first step. Then one needs to find the policy means of thoroughly integrating Monetary Gifting into the economic system, and finally recognizing the concept/ethic/zeitgeist behind even the new paradigm so as to have a sufficient ethical guide for the continuance of the new paradigm and for curbing both the private and public vices inherent in the old one.

Me:  The real distinction and significance that is not being comprehended in economics and monetary theory is the actual moment to moment problem lies in the scarcity ratio of total INDIVIDUAL INCOMES to total costs/prices NOT TOTAL MONEY in the system, and that finding an integrative economic way to invert and transform that ratio is not only key to fixing the problem but to creating the new paradigm.

Also, the trick is to try to be continually open, affirming and integrative about economic reforms. As I have said here I agree with 99% of what the heterodox economists say here. My problem is they do not seem to be aware of how to implement their largely accurate critiques.

Double entry bookkeeping being the underlying moment to moment micro-economic infrastructure for all commerce, the sales/macro-economic aggregation points throughout the entirety of the economy and also a digital system where equal debits and credits sum to zero makes it the perfect system and means for inverting and transforming the above seeming problematic monetary and economic ratio with the discount/rebate policies I have posted here, and makes their temporal monetary and economic effects simple, elegant and powerful. Once you see it and how it cuts through all of the correctly identified complexity of the economy the normal reaction is…how did I not see this? The answer of course is if you do not look in the right place and think economically….you do not perceive and recognize solutions.

I just finished listening to an interview of Michael Hudson and I said “yes” to myself about virtually everything he said. Hudson’s moral indignation at the philosophy and actions of the current macro-economic orthodoxy has always been strong and his critque of it has always been incisive and I have always admired that in him.

Guys like Hudson, Keen and other heterodox economists have always been right about what is wrong with and about economics, but their critque still does not fully consciously comprehend the new paradigm. This is mostly because there are a few orthodoxies they’ve not fully de-bunked yet, and also because they do not look directly at the moment to moment operations of commerce and so have not discovered the monetary and economic significances there that will enable them to see how the new paradigm can be seamlessly and most beneficially integrated into the economy.

They have not cognited on the concept and zeitgeist behind even the new paradigm itself which is the natural philosophical concept of grace in its many aspects. Awakening to this is even more important than the new paradigm because it is the guiding light that will permanently curb/reverse all of the vices/deadly sins of the current system they so eloquently and precisely describe.

So with their insightful theorizing they are currently one integration below paradigm and two below zeitgeist. When in doubt integrate! And then keep on integrating because grace which is love in process/action/expression in the temporal universe is the ultimate integrative human concept.

Finally, when one realizes that the natural philosophical concept of grace has always been the partially/fragmentarily expressed concept behind every genuinely permanent and progressive change, i.e. paradigm change in human history is when one realizes that fully understanding/integrating the aspects of grace would be an ultimate understanding of the cosmos and hence the greatest expansion of conscious in human history.

Science is a smaller mindset than Wisdom. Science like food is wonderful, tasty and necessary….and it exists entirely within the digestive tract of Wisdom. Unless one developes a thoroughly integrative mindset they are unlikely to have and will undoubtedly not completely identify the experience of grace because grace is a dynamic, wholistic and personal experience while the mindset of science is a static, fragmentary, data gathering and comparing objectifying process.