IS….however one wants to define it scientifically or religiously. It also is experienced at various levels and intensities, and as a result of degrees of inner and outer integrated awareness. In other words the more your awareness is aware of and integrated with external realities the more intense is your conscious experience. This also works in reverse as the more aware you are of your own self awareness and the realities you have created consciously or unconsciously…..obviously the more conscious of your self awareness you are. That may be a tautology, but it remains the truth for human beings.

Virtually everything in the area of the paradigm change is in doubt, and can also be construed as its opposite.

Steve Hummel 11/10/2017

Foreign Importers:

Yes, if they actually decided to participate in the discount policy by matching its percentage.

Foreign Importers would also need to understand that the policies of Wisdomics-Gracenomics would enable US based businesses to fully benefit from the discount being applied by all of its domestic vendors throughout the entirety of the economic/productive process. Also, the policies of Wisdomics-Gracenomics would enable the US to rapidly re-industrialize and produce the same types of products in the most efficient technological and economic way.

US Exporters:

Yes, so long as all such revenues and profits from such sales remain patriated in the US.

….that one thinks thoroughly past the old and thoroughly into the new. This does not mean that we have to completely abandon aspects of the old. For instance the current/old paradigm is Debt Only. Debt will still be a part of the new economy, it’s just the Onlyness that is deleted.

Wisdomics-Gracenomics will greatly stabilize the domestic economy….and its implementation will have knock on effects on international trade.

First off, one of the aspects of the concept behind the new paradigm is dynamic ethical balance.  In other words ethics is a primary, nae the primary consideration behind the new paradigm….which if one looks at the history of economics….is something entirely new. It’s not that ethics, of a sort, have not been there, it’s that ethics, well considered ethics, have never, ever been primary.  

Finance, which can be a legitimate business model, has none the less been problematic to the point of parasitism….for millennia. That must and will end with the new paradigm…and the reasonable, ethical and dynamically balancing policies and regulations that will accompany the stabilizing changes brought about by the primary policies of the new paradigm.

In other words Finance must and will yield its problematic and corrupting grip….on the rest of the economy.

There will no longer be any necessity for export platform-ism with domestic economic stability.

Accompanying regulation of leveraged speculations on commodities and currencies will be dynamically balanced and aligned with the new paradigm.

Wildly de-stabilizing and unethical speculations (various derivative products, naked shorting, etc.) ….will not be allowed, will not be acknowledged and will be considered null and void from any domestic or foreign source.

The legitimate function of taxation as discouragement of economic vices will apply.

International financial and corporate organizations will respect the new paradigm and its sane and ethical regulations.

These policies and regulations will and should be a part of the recognition of the new paradigm….as the new unmistakable advance that is a new paradigm itself.  Of course this recognition will inevitably be a process, especially for Finance, and yet, while there is no end to history….there is also the history of both expanding human awareness and of paradigm changes wherein everything adapts to a new paradigm….not the other way around.

Final translation:  Monetary Gifting is the new primary paradigm, Debt Only was the old primary paradigm, Debt will remain an aspect of the economy but….ANY. ANTI-SOCIAL. ATTEMPTS. BY FINANCE/FINANCIERS TO DE-STABILIZE OR THWART THE NEW PARADIGM. WILL. NOT. BE. ALLOWED. …..FULL STOP.

It’s Policy. First, policy is where the “economic rubber hits the road” of temporal reality. Second, the tendency of every policy of cutting edge heterodox, inconoclastic, anti-financial dominance and disequilibrium  theory is aligned with the Wisdomics-Gracenomics’ paradigms of monetary abundance, dynamic ratio, directness, reciprocality and gifting, and yet these same policy recommendations are fragmentary, incomplete and/or un-integrated and so lacking in full consciousness and insight as to the exact complementary policies that will achieve the breakthrough to complete micro-foundational integration and the consequent perception of  the new paradigm and the depth of its effects.

Examples:

Modern Debt Jubilee/UBI/QE For The Individual…..aligns with monetary abundance, directness and gifting, but not with dynamic ratio or reciprocality

MMT/Job Guarantee….aligns with monetary abundance and directness, but insufficiently  with dynamic ratio and reciprocality, not at all with gifting

Disequilibrium/Minsky Instability….aligns with abundance, dynamic ratio (disequilibrium), but insufficiently with directness, reciprocality and gifting

Social Credit/Dividend and Discount….aligns with dynamic ratio, directness, reciprocality and gifting, but not necessarily with monetary abundance (a slight bias toward equilibrium)

Me:  I agree that block chain/crypto-currencies are not secure and are an energetic deflection away from the real problem. The real problem being the domination of Finance, not Finance itself which is a legitimate business model. However, in order for the triangular/tripartite concept of Money/Banks/Debt to stabilize the system the dominating and virtually monopolistic paradigm of Debt Only….must yield to a new one. Dominating Finance is a Leviathan and will wriggle free if we do not deal with it terminatedly.

CG:  It seems somewhat inconsistent of you (Steve Keen) to criticise neoclassical economics by pointing at incompatibilities with empirical evidence, and then to criticise bitcoin on the basis that multiple copies could be made, and thus (extending your argument) the value be diluted to zero. Yes there are a great many competing blockchains out there, but most have a very small market size (or monetary base if you prefer), and in total they are roughly the same size combined as bitcoin right now. So despite 10s or 100s of copy-paste blockchains emerging, bitcoin still remains dominant. Hence to me that particular argument is on shaky ground given the empirical evidence from over 8 years of bitcoin’s existence. My view is that there is a network effect at work here, i.e. similar to the reason a copy-paste of facebook.com wouldn’t take anything like 50% of facebook’s traffic over night (intellectual property concerns aside!) – see google+! On bitcoin energy usage the situation may not be as dire as you’re making out. The max energy expenditure possible is given by taking the total mining rewards in bitcoin (currently around 1800 BTC/day), multiplying by the market rate (currently approx $6000), and spending all of that money on energy, i.e. assuming no other costs. Yes that’s a *lot* of energy, but (A) the per-block reward will eventually drop to zero, leaving only transaction fee income. Also competition will drive out all but cheapest energy sources, or rather, those with the lowest marginal costs such as hydro, solar and wind; thus the energy usage over time may have very low CO2 emissions. Bear in mind that if bitcoin continues to succeed as a store of value, then there will be an incentive to build energy farms (solar in particular) in places that may not be viable right now, e.g. desert sites nowhere near any population centers that could use the energy. I’m not saying bitcoin doesn’t have issues, but I think you’d do well to think about what those issues are in more depth. I see both bitcoin and your own research as having a common genesis, i.e. as responses to serious deficiencies in the global financial system, so to me it’s something I feel should be on the ‘Steve Keen’s list of stuff to give serious consideration to’ 🙂 I would add that I think the likelihood is that bitcoin is experiencing a bubble right now, but is not inherently a bubble technology. The dotcom bubble burst but the internet continued and grew.

Me:  Even though it may be well intentioned the reason why Bitcoin does not really need much consideration is because it is still attached to the aspect of the old paradigm of money being a commodity. Its thrusts toward individuality and saturation within and throughout the economy are actually correct, but as the money system is fiat, monetary and (potentially) fully distributive, and these are all aspects of the new paradigm….those are the realities and the direction thinking should go.

CG:  Bitcoin was born out of the realisation that you could form a distributed electronic system that acted as both a store of value and a means of transferring value, by combining three key technologies – peer to peer file sharing protocols/networks, public/private key cryptography and proof of work. It stands as a novel idea and a store of value with a sufficiently distinct set of features and risks as to set it apart from any existing store of value and thus in that aspect alone it is worthy asset class (IMO). However, bitcoin is a prototype, a proof of concept of that core idea, from there we can consider its qualities and how it may be modified to improve it with respect to any number of goals, but to date no such modification (alt coin) has made changes substantive enough to dislodge bitcoin as the pimary crypto-currency (or whatever you want to call it). By all means dismiss it if you wish, but there is a debate going on and something interesting is happening, and as such I would encourage everyone with an interest in economics to pay attention. At the very least bitcoin has gotten a lot of people thinking about what exactly is money? How can something so clearly absent of any backing by traditional means have spontaneously obtained value?

Me:  Both the money system and the pricing system are digital in the sense that a given amount of money/credit will liquidate an equivalent amount of debt balance or price so it’s potentially distributive already. All these systems require is a policy potent and thorough enough that it resolves the problem of continual debt build up which is currently required and yet still does not stabilize the system. And that way we could have a true fiat monetary paradigm change instead of trying to place the square never actually working peg of commodity money into the round hole of the fiat endogenous money system.

…”but I don’t blame China, they’re just doing what is best for themselves.” (at least not to their faces and while I’m here, at home I’ll demagogue them all to hell)

Subliminal message: They’re out dominating us economically.

The whole problem is everyone is stuck in the mindset and policies of domination…instead of in the mindset and policies of Grace/graciousness.

JS:  There is no winner in a trade war, although I think China has some disreputable trade practices. The US did not lose manufacturing jobs to China, or at least mostly to China. They lost them to automation, and China will soon lose them too. I’m not enamored with Trump’s economic policies, and I’m not even enamored with Trump right now. The reason I supported Trump in the election is that he was the only one with an anti-globalist agenda. Until you slay that dragon, there will be no “gifting” economy, or Social Credit. You have to kick the globalists to the curb, and take control over your own nation. The World Bank and the IMF will never allow Social Credit to be implemented.

Me:   Yes, the globalist paradigm is errant, the Protestant-Individuality/Catholic-Subsidiarity paradigms are the true integrative route to national and international prosperity.

I would also say that it was an integrated phenomenon of the globalist corporations moving American jobs to China where they created the best and most efficient factories at that time in order to become the global export platform to America and the world in the interests of the Chinese government and the global corporations ONLY…but not in the interests of America and its citizens.

…an inversion, and further an inversion of primacy.

Current paradigms:

[ (individual monetary scarcity x indirectness of monetary policy)  <–>  inter-temporal cost-price inflation ]  Debt Only

New paradigms:

[ (individual monetary abundance x  directness/reciprocality of monetary policy) <–>  inter-temporal cost-price deflation ]  Still have Debt, but Gifting is integrated into the economy and becomes the new primary paradigm

Note: the reciprocality of the high percentage discount applied to every point of sale enables price deflation in profit making economies.

You can use the cosmic code formula for any economic factors and/or old/present paradigms like equilibrium:

Current paradigms:

[ (statistical analysis x  linear analysis)  an apparent statistical balance-equilibrium that is actually a harmful disequilibrium ]

New paradigms:

[ (statistical & macro-analysis x dynamic & differential analysis) an actual “higher” and collectively beneficial disequilibrium….if one implements both of the complementary policies of an abundant universal individual dividend and a high percentage reciprocated discount at the point of sale  ]

By the way The Cosmic Code formula is what I refer to as philosophical mathematics.

to live consciously on both sides of the looking glass. That enables one to see Trinity-unity-oneness-wholeness-consciousness-process….as the supreme and ultimate integrative reality. In other words it is embracing a reality that spans and includes all of the realities of the Hegelian Dialectic [ (Thesis x Antithesis)  <–>  Synthesis ]  ….at the same time. This is not religion, but rather Natural Spirituality as in:

[ (Religion x Science)  <–>  Natural Spirituality ]

Steve Hummel 11/09/2017