It’s actually a very old and unfortunately mostly forgotten vision (the Wisdom of grace/graciousness) that has finally found a way to be effectively and thoroughly integrated into the most powerful temporal universe reality that everyone participates in, namely the economy and the money system. And that universally participatory fact makes it probably only the third mega-paradigm change in the history of the human species.

The first is economic virtue and must be incentivised, and the second is the shittiest, most morally corrupt sin of economics.

In the new paradigm most of the latter will be banned, and the rest will be strictly regulated.

Finance, get over it.

Paradoxically, the only temporal universe truth that never changes…is that everything changes.

System’s analysis is great and necessary, but system’s philosophy is even more important and leads to deeper analysis.

For instance, system’s philosophy properly learned can help one become more comfortable with ambiguity which usually tends to help one avoid rigid mental alligiance to an orthodoxy. It also directs one’s analysis directly onto concepts, and as paradigms are operant applied concepts it could enable one to more easily discern a new paradigm concept.

If China or any other country we import products or resources from raise their prices we will slap a tarrif of the total increase in price on any such inflated prices plus 1%. The tarrif revenue plus 1% will then be rebated back to the enterprises that imported those goods essentially turning a cost increase problem into a benefit for the business.

This policy is perfectly reflective of both the same accounting method the 50% Discount/Rebate policy at retail sale and of the new monetary and financial paradigm itself.

The importing enterprise will need to pledge that they themselves will not inflate their prices in order to receive the benefit of the tarrif policy, and if they break that pledge they will suffer loss of the rebate and 1% gift for 1 month the first time and the second time they do so despite reciving a gift they will lose both the rebated tarrif and the 1% gift altogether.

So long as we fail to analyze on the operant concept/paradigmatic level these crazy instabilities will continue and we’ll never get a regulatory regime that keeps things stable.

It’s not Debt ITSELF that is the problem it’s the monopolistic paradigm for the creation and distribution of new money…of Debt ONLY. The word ONLY designates it as a monopoly CONCEPT as in monopoly PARADIGM concept.

A 50% gift of price to the consumer at retail all of which is rebated back to the merchant granting it by the monetary authority utilizes the accounting method the private banks utilize to create 95-97% of our money. All kinds of benefits result from this single policy as I have posted here many times before, but the biggest benefit is it integrates the new monetary and financial paradigm of Monetary Gifting into the presently monopolistic paradigm of Debt ONLY.

A 25-50% debt jubilee at the point of loan signing (the percentage depends upon whether the purchase or purpose is ecologically sane or not) integrates debt jubilee CONTINUOUSLY into the economic process and the current Debt ONLY paradigm….instead of just pecking away ineptly at the current monopoly paradigm for ever shortening periods of crisis.

Why don’t you plug these policies into Minsky and see if it doesn’t stabilize things?

And of course the entire taxation and regulatory framework will need to be changed in order to align it with the new paradigm and the natural philosophical concept behind every historical paradigm change namely grace. That’s why I call the new economics Wisdomics-Gracenomics. Am I some gross moralist or religious fundamentalist? No, I’m probably the biggest agnostic and anti-anthropological theism advocate you could ever meet, but I refuse to throw the baby of Wisdom out with the anti-scientific bathwater.

Think on these things and maybe you’ll become a system’s philosopher like R. Buckminster Fuller, who talked alot about new paradigms urged us to become, instead of only the best economist on the planet.

Me: All excellent points. The FED is actually set up to protect the banking system, and it operates within what is considered free market theory but which is actually alternately goosed and strangled monetary chaos. So there is a fundamental theoretical misunderstanding/problematic belief that the current system is free when its actually chaos and which is ultimately benefited only by finance via their monopolistic paradigm concept of Debt as in the burden to repay ONLY. The solution is to implement policies that, like every new paradigm, are in complete conceptual opposition to the current one. The policies of MMT and all of the leading edge reforms all align with this because what is a job guarantee? A gift of revenue to whomever wants a job. Fiscal Deficits? Monetary/revenue gifts to government employees and contractors. What is UBI/Universal Dividend? A sustaining level gift of money. What is Public Banking/a true publicly administered banking system? Banking that is a beneficial public utility as opposed to private parasitical, paradigmatic dominance, and that, in a monetarily sovereign nation, is freed from the necessity of making a profit. (Note: This doesn’t mean there will not be loans/indebtedness, only that debt will not dominate and eventually/inevitably overwhelm the economy as Steve Keen and Minsky have shown has been the case).

Finally, what single policy would end inflation forever, double everyone’s purchasing power and create much more abundant demand for every enterprise’s goods and services…because of its strategic implementation at the single universally participated in and thus aggregative/macro-economically effective point in the entire economic process, namely retail sale?

A 50% Discount/Rebate policy at retail sale. In other words a monetary gift of half of the price at the terminal ending point of the economic process that:

1) utilizes the same method that Finance uses currently to create new money ONLY as Debt, that is, equal accounting entries summing to zero,

2) as mentioned above and as all historical paradigm changes have been, is in complete conceptual opposition to the current paradigm (Debt as in burden to repay Only vs Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting) and also completely inverts the current temporal reality of the pattern under analysis (individual and fiscal/systemic monetary austerity accompanied by erosive inflation to beneficial monetary abundance and price and asset deflation)

Of course, as humans are not an altogether rational and ethical species, even new paradigms need an additional regulatory and policy program to counter that fact. A program that is in philosophical alignment with the new paradigm concept.

WG: I have to admit that your comment takes me back to my undergraduate days of trying to make sense of Hegel’s philosophy. It seems your central thesis is the 50% discount/rebate policy at retail sale. I believe you and I have had this exchange before. Your prose is way too dense for me–and thus, I expect, for most readers. You may have something important to say, but for the life of me I can’t fathom what it is. I don’t want to miss out on your insights, but I wish you could formulate them in a more accessible style. Thanks, Wally

Me: The 50% Discount/Rebate at retail sale is the primary policy because it is the very expression of the new paradigm concept (Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting) and because it is at the single aggregative/macro-economic point in the entire economic process because everyone participates in retail sale thus its beneficial effects (doubling of purchasing power, ending inflation forever and greatly increased demand for every enterprise’s goods and services) are universally experienced.

As I have said many times here the policies of MMT and other leading theorist’s conceptually align with Monetary Gifting so I’m not trolling them I’m just trying to get them to look at that very expression of the new paradigm. I’m also trying to get them to analyze on the paradigmatic/entire pattern change level instead of simply on the reductionistic reform level which deals with separate problems within the pattern under analysis.

Paradigms are long term unconsciously acculturated “things” so they are hard to see, and new paradigms, being new, are even harder to see because being in conceptual opposition to the current paradigm they require a willingness to go against the logic of orthodoxies that have grown up around the current paradigm.

The best way to begin seeing the efficacy of the 50% Discount/Rebate and the beneficial effects of the new pattern concept is to simply do the relatively simple math of that policy until you really see how it indeed mathematically, empirically and systemically resolves the problems I stated above. Then it becomes a no brainer because no other reform even comes close to being able to resolve those problems…all in a single policy that expresses the new concept.

RP: It depends on what is driving the inflation. Read John Maynard Keynes 1940 paper. (small book) “HOW TO PAY FOR THE WAR!” The problem is not that we don’t know how to control inflation, the problem is no one is willing to say or take the necessary steps. FDR was not!

John Maynard Keynes 1936 “General Theory” is central to the macroeconomics textbook written by Mitchell, Wray and Watt according to its authors. In today’s toxic political environment I understand why someone like Stephanie Kelton would use caution when advocating for the necessary steps, but instead throw down breadcrumbs…AKA Fiscal Policy. It’s not that hard to figure out.

Me: There is indeed more than one reason for inflation, but inflation IS inflation. So the point is to not only to end inflation, but to transform it into beneficial price and asset DEFLATION. A reform (sometimes and painfully) does the former while complete and BENEFICIAL inversion of pattern reality is one of the classic signatures of paradigm change. Thus the 50% Discount/Rebate policy at retail sale.

Also, historically reforms last for a while (Keynesianism lasted for 40 years and then got morphed into Neo-classical macro) but again, historically, everything adapts to a new paradigm, not the other way around.

Ending inflation forever also opens up the ability to run the kind of fiscal deficits MMTers only have wet dreams about. The better to confront climate change, so it aligns with their intentions.

Thank you Diana. I’m four square for science. Let me preface with that. However science which is supposed to be values neutral is actually values neglectful. And thats why we need Wisdom of which ethics, the rational consideration of morals, is an integral part. Then, if you consider that:

1) love has always universally been considered the supreme human value and experience and

2) grace is nothing more and certainly nothing less than love in action/systemic policy, then

3) grace/graciousness/Wisdom is the superlative human mental discipline AND object, not science which is just a set within Wisdom and

4) I’m of the considered opinion that grace as in the ecstatic experience itself is actually the largely undiscovered state and deepest reality…of the present moment and of the cosmos. So may grace/graciousness be within us all, and in our systems via policy reflective of same.

If you want clarity about money and the economy you have to first be open to analyzing on the operant applied paradigmatic level. And that is the biggest hurdle because it (apparently, but not actually) goes against the modern quasi-monopolistic reductive paradigm for inquiry AKA science. In other words to analyze on the paradigmatic level you have to find a single concept when we’ve all been acculturated since the enlightenment to find all of the relevant data and confirm its truthfulness…first! Overcome that bias and its probably 90% of the battle won because you’re starting by finding the single concept that is most problematic which greatly focuses your research and then, using the signatures of imminent and accomplished paradigm changes it becomes much easier to decipher the new paradigm concept. Understand, I’m four square for science, just not overly orthodox science. All monopolies are problematic and inhibitive, but monopolistic paradigms/operant concepts are particularly so.