GM: Inflation is not increasing significantly. Other models note the same phenomena but prescribe very different policy responses. Sovereign money, for example, as discussed in Adair Turner’s Between Debt and the Devil. Or the Sharia compliant solutions in Stuff Man’s brilliant House if Debt. If the facts we observe, such as increasing debt, support two or three or more hypotheses, all if which ,”save the Appearances”, why choose Douglas? What is the tiebreaker?
Me: Number one it IS increasing. Number two the lower bound of costs due to the increasing cost of capital must go into the lower bound of price. Thus the 5 cent candy bar of my youth now costs $1.09 at Fry’s (or you can get some stale ones for $.89 at Wal mart) and yet minimum wages haven’t gone up 22 times or even 18 times since the 50’s.
The system is inherently cost inflationary and so to inject money into it that adds a cost, i.e. loans and even if additional money goes into the system the individual loses purchasing power because of that inherent nature. The only way to remedy an inherently cost inflationary system is to implement monetary gifting to the individual (a dividend) and to save the system as well reciprocal gifting (a compensated retail discount). If you would please look at that….it will become apparent to you.
GM: Inflation metrics show the central banks unable to achieve their annual inflation target of 2%. There was a highly inflationary period in the 1970s so that candy you like got a lot more expensive but since the GFC policy makers have worried about deflation.
Me: Inflation statistics are not complete analyses number one, and highly suspect coming from either central banks or governments number two. Heterodox economists like Steve Keen are presenting graphs and statistics that show long term cost inflation due increasing debt. They just haven’t cognited on the fact that due to the continually increasing costs of capital that it is an inherent aspect of the system. If you look at it instead of blithely and/or reflexively looking away from it….it becomes apparent that the dual policies of Social Credit are the solution to the actual problem.
Keen, who is a disequilibrium/process theorist, is paradoxically stuck in looking at the static and momentary deflationary symptoms of the end of the cycle we are presently in. As I have said here many times he is a nascent Social Crediter.
GM: So all central banks and governments are conspiring to suppress the truth that only SC believers like you recognize? Is that what you are suggesting? If you think existing metrics flawed, can you present alternatives for scrutiny and testing,? Why are they superior and can we test them?
Me: “So all central banks and governments are conspiring to suppress the truth that only SC believers like you recognize?Is that what you are suggesting??”
There may be some who are self interestedly promulgating such, but It’s much more likely the vast majority are simply not aware of the cost accounting reality that makes Social Credit’s theorem the deeper truth.
“If you think existing metrics flawed, can you present alternatives for scrutiny and testing?”
I just did that and you blithely and/or reflexively ignored it. Steve Keen has correctly stated that economists can get their advanced degrees without taking so much as an elementary course in accounting, and yet he and other heterodox economists are still unconsciously splashing around on the surface of debits and credits instead of looking at the deeper cost accounting insights.
GM: “actual temporal effects” of a program never implemented is an empty set. There are only “imaginary effects,” of SC.
Me: Yes….if you do not look at them. To honestly visualize them as they would actually be if implemented….tends to remedy such refusal/inability to do so.
Yes….if you do not look at them. To honestly visualize them as they would actually be if implemented….tends to remedy such refusal/inability to do so.
GM: Metrics are incomplete, you say. So what are they leaving out and how do your metrics repair the omission?
Me: I repeat: the additional costs of ever increasing physical and financial capital. I already showed how the policies of Social Credit would remedy the problem. Will you please look at them.
GM: “as they would be” is not “actual temporal”: but rather imaginary. Thank you for confirming my point.
Me: Quite the contrary you just made my point that you are unwilling and/or unable to visualize the obvious. You are stuck in non-looking both inwardly and outwardly regarding Social Credit philosophy and policies and hence stuck in unknowingness of and about them.
“Without a vision the people perish.” And without the willingness and/or ability to visualize the thinker’s conclusions are either incomplete…or vapid.
GM: Your actual is not in actual, but only potential, in potentia. It never Actually happened. Hence it is only imagined. I, unlike you, do not confuse my imagination with actuality. You find that objectionable. So be it.
Me: I have absolutely no problems confusing what is imagined and what takes place in the temporal/physical universe. I’m simply willing and able to observe, experience and utilize my rational faculties in both. You have repeatedly shown your unwillingness to look at relevant data and observations we have presented to you regarding Social Credit, and have even refused to visualize (I use that word because you irrationally assume that using the imagination must rationally degrade it in some way). These refusals to look at both data and visualize even the commonsensical results of policy is why throughout your entire time here you have not once actually considered Social Credit in any way!
Will you please “get off the dime” and begin to honestly engage the subject???? You’re no longer fooling anyone here…..except yourself.
GM: You refer to what has never happened as ,”actual, temporal.,”,But you then acknowledged that it is only what W/could be…if”. Thus us confusing actuality with potentiality , the real with the imagined. Your insistence that what never has been is “actual” merely reinforces your fundamental error. It is that simple. “Actual” means in act, in deed, not in hypothesis.
Me: Again, I don’t have any confusions about the difference between temporal reality and imagination. Considering that you are the one who has repeatedly refused to even look inwardly or outwardly at what the temporal effects of Social Credit policies would actually be (my point) is YOUR mental problem to fix…..not mine.
There is nothing wrong with hypothesis. It is the beginning of the triune scientific process after all. And to be even more exact regarding my prior post….YOUR refusal to look and engage either inwardly or outwardly at Social Credit’s philosophy and policies has been YOUR dishonest intellectual approach from the very beginning. Admit what everyone else is now seeing.
Social Credit/Wisdomics/Gracenomics/ Gracientialism 