Yes, Science Only IS a monopolistic paradigm for inquiry. Anyone who blatantly contradicts, ignores or distorts science is understandably open to critique, however orthodoxy is one of Man’s worst tendencies and adheres to both sides of any dualism. Science requires the integrative mindset of the dialectic/the thirdness greater oneness of Wisdom….and money, finance and the economy particularly require it.

Thank you all for confirming this fact.

*****************************************

Economics, needs an integrative and thus evolutionary mindset, a commitment to an ongoing dialectic that seeks thirdness greater oneness of truths, workabilities and the highest ethical considerations in apparent opposites. In other words the multi-disciplinary mindset of Wisdom.

******************************************

The parable (Man searching for his keys only in the light of a street lamp) is actually most apt regarding the mindset and utilization of analysis itself. If one will only look with the reductionist mindset of science while neglecting or ignoring philosophy, which by the way also includes the set of science, they will be prone to at best palliatives and at worst missing the pattern solution altogether.

The word philosophy means the love of ideas/concepts, and paradigms are single and singularly defining pattern concepts like terra-centrism, nomadism and Debt Only.

New paradigms are the ultimate integrative mental and temporal phenomena that replace the old/present ones…. like for instance helio-centrism, agriculture/homesteading/urbanization and Monetary Gifting.

Let us be aware of and not be afraid to use all of the tools of analysis, lest we stumble around in the light in the corner of a room and never consider that solutions may exist in the unexplored darkness of its entirety.

Direct fiat monetary distribution is an excellent consciousness raising/learning opportunity regarding the need for that new paradigm in the monetary and financial systems.

Me: The entire issue of uncertainty is basically moot. Change/emergence is an aspect of the temporal universe so….okay.

The real issue is whether progress is palliative reform or paradigm changing. But even a paradigm change eventually becomes orthodoxy and problematic.

Now a mega-paradigm/zeitgeist change, the initiator of which Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting is, THAT is really broad and stable progress. There’s only been two, maybe three of those in the entire history of the human species.

Intellectuals, “Ye must become like little children.” That is, let loose of your burdensome and limiting orthodoxies, even your iconoclasm, and consider the integrative thirdness that emerges out of dualing half truths and falsehoods when a new tool or insight is discovered.

Please.

Dave,

What you and others say is all perfectly correct. The only thing it leaves out is the possibility (and historical evidence for) of a dynamic integrative thirdness greater oneness that both underlies and is the natural impetus for evolutionary change.

In essence everyone here is talking about, not of, the wisdom/paradigmatic level of inquiry and analysis, which being the ultimate integrative phenomenon (a single concept that transforms an entire complexity/pattern, i.e. the integration of the mental and the temporal) ….is precisely what everyone here would like to see happen in economic theory and the economy proper.

I also recognize that this a total conversation-stopping viewpoint for the chattering classes whose habituation to problems (point-counterpoint, obsessive dualism) but sometime one needs to “become like little children” and come into present time about these matters…so we can all get on with the business of better survival.

Sorry.

DT:

Craig, I don’t know what you are sorry about, unless it is my having become disappointed by the “total conversation-stopping view point of the chattering classes” here. I could have used baby talk and spoken of the “dynamic integrative thirdness greater oneness that both underlies and is the natural impetus for evolutionary change” as God, or more explicitly the trinitarian God; but that would have been taken as a conversation-stopper by the self-worshippers that I have been trying not to talk down to. Don’t lump me with the others about being “perfectly correct”: we differ at the philosophical level. I’m prepared to accept the possibility that God exists and the more-or-less historical evidence that confirms this; they have accepted that he can’t and rejected the history as fiction. Trying to stay in the conversation, perhaps I am ” talking about, not of, the wisdom/paradigmatic level of inquiry and analysis … [which] is precisely what everyone here would like to see happen in economic theory and the economy proper”. What I am thinking of, though, is the grace of God the Father expressing his lonely love by his energy evolving into us, his children, the concept transforming this energy being first our absence and then today’s story: the prodigal son’s absence as his lack of due gratitude fails to reflect the love of his Father.

So I’ve failed to deliver the ultimate challenge. It’s me that needs to be sorry. Thanks for the warning, Craig.

Me: My use of sorry was actually lightly sarcastic number one, and was aimed at the apparently scientistic and/or otherwise non-comprehenders of the importance of paradigmatic analysis here, not yourself who is at least open to wisdom. I couldn’t care less whether one attributes wisdom/paradigmatic analysis to God or simply to the most underlying nature of the cosmos….only that they try to think through the implications and recognize how utilizing such a mindset has historically been the route to increased knowledge, REAL progress and better survival.

Of course I’m “Johnny one note”, but at least I’m Johnny one note about what the major heterodox reformers are all in agreement about, that is, that the problem revolves around money, debt and banks. I’m just trying to get the otherwise intelligent posters here to focus on THE PARADIGM OF MONEY, DEBT AND BANKS …..instead of yammering on endlessly about lesser and/or ALREADY AGREED UPON assumption problems in economic theory.

To all of you who do not reply to my posts: A troll can be both a bother to the analyst….and a prophet you know.

MC: It is very clear above that what Keen is doing is NOT what Shiozawa is doing. The title of Shiozawa’s book is refuted by Keen: “Microfoundations of Evolutionary Economics.” Shiozawa is arguing he has found the microfoundations for evolutionary economics. Clearly, keen is arguing above is a different animal alltogether: “The fallacy in the belief that higher-level phenomena (like macroeconomics) have to be, or even could be, derived from lower-level phenomena (like microeconomics) … (Keen)” 

Me: An excellent post on the dynamic, interactive, integrative and emergent qualities of the natural philosophical concept of grace. That concept is also the humanly perceptible state of the temporal universe. All one need do is walk around and touch a few walls and ACTUALLY look at objects and their individual characteristics and all of a sudden…satori! Space and objects are an experience not an abstraction and even more enlightening YOU are much more real than just a chattering voice inside your head. It’s the direct integration and experience of the seeming opposite ends of the evolutionary reality except there’s no top or bottom, real or unreal just a unitary flowing natural and cosmic isness.

Do we want an economy that flows freely and is dynamic, interactive, integrative and natural? Well then, model it after the ACTUAL temporal universe reality of grace by taking two of humanity’s greatest tools, money and double entry bookkeeping and creating abundance, including the self reflective balancing proclivities of wisdom and ethics to consciously guide the necessary randomness which is part and parcel of the natural state of temporal reality.

Ah, may we have the serenity of the present moment in the economy….as quickly as possible. 🙂

MC: It is very clear above that what Keen is doing is NOT what Shiozawa is doing. The title of Shiozawa’s book is refuted by Keen: “Microfoundations of Evolutionary Economics.” Shiozawa is arguing he has found the microfoundations for evolutionary economics. Clearly, Keen is arguing above is a different animal altogether: “The fallacy in the belief that higher-level phenomena (like macroeconomics) have to be, or even could be, derived from lower-level phenomena (like microeconomics) … (Keen)” 

Me: The problem is neither Keen nor Shiozawa, nor any other economist for that matter have cognited on the one chink in the paradigmatic armor of Finance. That chink is the fact that money and its creation are most basically accounting and thus must follow its conventions like equal debits and credits must sum to zero. Hence the efficacy of an equal debit and credit monetary and price policy at the point of retail sale. For the umpteenth time that single policy is paradigm changing. Just look at it and its immediate and continuous effects.

Most people probably consider accounting mere bean counting, but it and its conventions are actually a powerful underlying infrastructure of the entire economy. Keen, who IS brilliant, has come to understand some of the importance of accounting and even remarks to that effect. I know I’ve listened to every one of his youtube and patreon videos for the last 10+ years, and yet missing the strategic power of the point of retail sale, also misses the problem and paradigm resolving potentials of the equal debit-credit-accounting convention policy at that point.

Another analogous way of looking at it is there is macro-economics, economic micro-foundations and the even deeper and more underlying facts and effects of accounting.

It’s kind of like Newtonian physics, quantum mechanics and the present search for a new physics (like string theory or a way to explain why the cosmos apparently lacks sufficient mass and yet is accelerating and thus there must be dark energy/dark matter causing it)…except the new insight, which is missed by economists and economic pundits because they are off in thrice removed from present time reality abstraction instead of looking directly at the economic process and its ending point where the insight exists…has already been discovered.

ghholtham: At the level of theory we require equations of motion, if you like, based on plausible aggregation properties of plausible views of human behaviour in particular circumstances. There is no expectation that these would have a “solution” in the form of a stable equilibrium. We need to acknowledge not only the incompleteness of information that makes optimisation not only impossible but actually meaningless and the importance of feasible information flows in the system. And because the economic system is evolutionary conclusions will always be bounded and conditional on particular circumstances. I must have acknowledged many times that I agree with most of Lars criticisms. My frustration is that basic theory of the sort we need will not be constructed by endlessly rehearsing the failings of current text-book orthodoxy.
In my opinion some of the building blocks of a more useful theory are to be found in the work of Herb Simon. See Models of Man, Essays in memory of Herbert A Simon ed Augier and March, MIT Press, available on kindle, for a gentle introduction. At the applied level you can do useful work with a few basic notions and a readiness to get your hands dirty with data but I agree better basic theory is highly desirable.

Me: ghholtham,

“At the level of theory we require equations of motion, if you like, based on plausible aggregation properties of plausible views of human behaviour in particular circumstances. There is no expectation that these would have a “solution” in the form of a stable equilibrium.”

Precisely. As has already been researched by Steve Keen with his Minsky software which dynamically relates the various relevant variables and flows of money. The only thing he’s failed to perceive is the concept of the new paradigm which will invert the present realities of individual monetary scarcity/systemic austerity, namely grace as in abundance and flow/free flowingness.

Once one “grocs” the new paradigm concept all they need to do is find the best way to implement and regulate it so as to prevent the other intentioned/anti-social from attempting to de-stabilize it. Its helio-centrism which resolved 99% of the emergent problems of terra-centrism and then the discovery of the ellipse which polished off the new concept.

So, the monopolistic present paradigm of Debt and Loan Only (terra-centrism) is broken up by integrating Monetary Gifting into the system, and then the rest of the edifice of the mentally thwarting, indirect and obsessive complexities of macro-economics drop back into their actual data point nature with the discovery of the strategically significant points of policy implementation, namely retail sale and note signing. Voila! We can get on with the existential problems of climate change and trying to game the second law of thermo-dynamics by off-planeting the most energy intensive means of production and colonizing the moon.

And while we’re at it we can also realize that “small is beautiful” is really just an aspect and technique for the self actualization of grace as in higher self awareness/consciousness. The better to transition to the potential zeitgeist of Arcadia from Faustian civilization.

Me: “And because the economic system is evolutionary conclusions will always be bounded and conditional on particular circumstances. I must have acknowledged many times that I agree with most of Lars criticisms. My frustration is that basic theory of the sort we need will not be constructed by endlessly rehearsing the failings of current text-book orthodoxy.”

Completely agree. But what we need is a theory of the new paradigm concept in money and finance….that will alter virtually all of the problematic economic issues people on this blog “endlessly rehearse” the failings of current text-book orthodoxy.

The breakthrough realization.

“What is the purpose of the economy?”

The purpose of production is consumption.

The point of consumption (retail sale) is the end of the entire economic process.

Once consumption occurs no valid economic agent has the right to charge the consumer additional costs.

Money has many aspects, but its most basic and important one is that it is accounting and thus must abide by the conventions of that discipline.

Monopolies are glaring contradictions in profit making systems.

For-profit finance has (idiotically) been granted a monopoly charter to do this and it exposes the fact of its economically parasitical nature, its illegitimacy as an economic agent and its de-stabilizing monopoly paradigm of Debt and Loan Only.

Monetary Gifting is the ultimate economic tool, ultimate facilitator of commerce, most ecologically aligned economic factor and most intelligent oppositional force to the tyranny of thermo-dynamics.

Those enterprises that abide by the new rules and don’t raise their prices without concrete empirical and legitimate reasons for doing so will have their new lower tax rates reduced further by 50%.

Those who don’t abide will be taxed at a rate of 100% on any revenue they may have garnered from illegitimately raising their prices, lose their rebate privileges with repeated inflations and risk public scorn and boycotting by the Department of Competition, Innovation, Boycotting and The Individual’s Bully Pulpit.

Me: Economics has gone through a pluralist and empirical revolution. It’s just that THAT is not enough, and of course its just an academic phenomenon not a viral “infection” of the individual’s mind.

Economists and economic pundits are still unconscious instead of self aware, still nomadic hunters and gatherers instead of homesteading agriculturists and city dwelling artisans, still trying to resolve the perturbations of the orbit of Mars instead of inverting the positions of the earth and the sun and still factoring for-profit banking and finance and its monopolistic paradigm of Debt and Loan Only instead of opening their minds to the efficacy of Monetary Gifting with a direct and reciprocal 50% discount/rebate price and monetary policy at the point of retail sale.

In other words you’re non-activists who are failing to analyze on the paradigmatic level and hence, despite your railing against academic orthodoxies and otherwise well taken minor observations and palliative reforms, you’re virtually all stuck in erudite duncery and getting no where FAST.

Meanwhile your children or grandchildren will probably be victimized by either a monopolisitic corporatocracy or a vulgar marxism as climate change and the end of the age of petroleum falls upon them in another 20-30 years. Yes, the end IS near.

It’s the monetary and financial paradigm, stupid!!!

NR: Craig, There’s nothing like a bit of that old-time monetary ‘gifting’ a la Major Douglas, Dietrich Eckhart, Anton Drexler etc. a.k.a ‘quantitative easing’ . Just borrow & print the stuff & any body who objects is just a ‘reactionary’ And top it all off with the meringue of sanctimony. After all “A nation cannot owe itself money”. ’cause it’s just internal book-keeping’ . ‘eh fellas ? Ach, Der ewige spinner !

Me: Norman,

I thought you to be reasonably well informed until you confused quantitative easing which is nothing more than an asset swap with a paradigm changing concept like monetary gifting. Get up to date, boy. And please stop the ad hominem while you’re at it.

Despite the fact that his (very insightful) policies were not informed by a well defined concept of pattern/paradigm because he lived before Kuhn and hence did not fit them to that form of analysis, C. H. Douglas had more of an incisive and iconoclastic intellect than anyone I’ve seen posting here, virtually all of which are stuck in obsessive duality, complexity and hence the regurgitation of heterodox orthodoxies ad nauseum…when as I have repeatedly posted here the key to paradigm perception and real enlightenment is deep simplicity, that is the integrative mindset also known as Wisdom.

DT: Norman is of course quite wrong to ridicule the only justifiable role of money being accountancy, ignoring the problems of it all things to all men and differentially scaleable, but so is Craig when not accepting that what is owed, though not money, is regeneration of Nature’s resources.

Me: Dave,

“…but so is Craig when not accepting that what is owed, though not money, is regeneration of Nature’s resources.”

Your heart is right but apparently you don’t read many of my posts, as I am the only person here who has shown how monetary and financial policy can be utilized to make profit making systems align with and synergize a rapid move toward ecological sanity.

“My suggestion is that money should be valuing people, not goods.”

Well if you want to make your suggestion come true you should start a religious movement, or better still get on the bandwagon to implement monetary policies that continually dramatize and serve to self actualize the impetus behind every one of the world’s major wisdom traditions, namely grace as in love in action.

DT: But so what? I wrote “Norman is of course quite wrong to ridicule … but so is Craig when not accepting that what is owed, though not money, is regeneration of Nature’s resources”.

Here, he hasn’t shown ME how “monetary and financial policy can be utilized to make profit making systems align with … ecological sanity” or “grace as in love in action”. As I see it, profit-making is precisely NOT giving, nor is depending on it wise.

Me: Well, doing away with profit making economic systems is not only reactionary it’s also a complete non-starter politically (and everything ultimately gets down to politics, that is, if you want to live in the real world of the temporal universe)

I suggest we inhabit and operate in both the heights of wisdom and the temporal universe. And grace being the ultimate unifying of opposites concept, spiritual reality and affirmation of the Good…is precisely what is needed. That and monetary, financial and economic policies like I have posted here many, many times that align with it. Grace after all is not only high it is equally mighty and pragmatic…otherwise there wouldn’t be a book entitled Proverbs and paradigms changes would be mere theory instead of the deep pattern changing simplicities that they have historically proven to be.

DT: Craig, you characterise doing away with monetary profit-making as “reactionary”. Is it reactionary to recognise and try to correct one’s mistakes?

The point anyway is that the understanding of money has changed from it being seen as storing wealth as a valuable durable to it having become a mere number, creatable and erasable at the touch of a keypad but (quantities being always positive) liable to misrepresent directions of value flow.

Me: “Craig, you characterise doing away with monetary profit-making as “reactionary”. Is it reactionary to recognise and try to correct one’s mistakes?”

You questioned profit making, seemingly as a whole in your prior post. I took that as reactionary and too general.

I indeed have questioned and shown how for-profit finance violates the economic convention that every legitimate commercial agent obeys, namely that no one has a right to charge additional costs beyond the point of consumption, i.e. retail sale.

“The point anyway is that the understanding of money has changed from it being seen as storing wealth as a valuable durable to it having become a mere number, creatable and erasable at the touch of a keypad but (quantities being always positive) liable to misrepresent directions of value flow.”

Obsession with storing wealth easily devolves into your frequent criticism regarding the love of money. As for both value of purchasing power and applying actual human values to the economic system I’m the only one here who has shown how the new monetary and financial mega-paradigm concept of grace as in Gifting and its policies transfer seamlessly and evolutionarily into the areas of the ecology and of human ethics.

The Department of Competition, Innovation, Boycotting and The Individual’s Bully Pulpit