That also makes it the most integrative and unitary concept/experience as well.

If you want true thirdness/oneness contemplate grace in all things.

If you want paradigm change instead of reform contemplate grace.

If you want problems and solutions without conflict or puzzlement contemplate grace.

Grace: The only actual Alpha and Omega, Grace: Love…in one’s heart and in their actions.

In other words it is the unity of the personal and the temporal.

I told you it was the integrative resolution of the ultimate duality.

Me: A 50% discount/rebate policy at the point of retail sale enables a $7.35/hr. minimum wage worker to purchase goods and services as if he/she were making $14.70/hr. and immediately doubles everyone’s potential purchasing power. Don’t be like a hard headed/reality denying neo-liberal macro-economic doink. Look at the above empirical and temporal universe reality and recognize it as paradigm changing. You’re welcome…for the opportunity to see a new reality and think a new thought which is a rare occurrence in life.

• yoshinori shiozawa October 20, 2021 at 6:38 pm Reply
• Dear Craig,
  are you sure that your policy plan is based on a good theory based on evidence?
  Measurement without theory was dangerous as Koopmans argued. However, a policy without theory is much more dangerous.
  • Craig October 21, 2021 at 4:43 am
  • Yoshi, My theoretics are the very same as the heterodox thinking of MMTer’s Monetary Sovereignty, Steve Keen’s Minsky Financial Instability Hypothesis, Michael Hudson’s Financial Parasitism et al. However, as I have repeatedly stated here for years (and the afore mentioned theoreticians [unconsciously] confirm) the actual/deeper problem is the present monetary and financial paradigm which parasitically dominates and manipulates virtually all other commercial and individual agents. My contribution is recognizing the present paradigm and, by a study of historical paradigm changes, discovering the signatures of new paradigm concepts and thus the new one required in money and finance. The new paradigm fits seamlessly within the heterodox theories above and all but the most misaligned current economic structures, and in fact effectively integrates their goals into the economy while enabling many other solutions than they have considered possible.
  • yoshinori shiozawa October 21, 2021 at 1:43 pm
  • I only know that you repeatedly insisted your policy plan. Having heterodox picture and having a good heterodox theory are two different things.
  • Craig October 21, 2021 at 6:41 pm
  • Logic is logic. If the theoretics of the heterodox reformers I mentioned above conceptually align with the new paradigm of monetary grace as in gifting…then they are aligned. And, if the new paradigm resolves the problems theorists want to solve and enables even more beneficial things than those theorists currently think are possible…then they better get on the bandwagon for the new paradigm or at best they risk logical failure and at worst some hidden or unconscious agenda.

The two “heavy balls” of economic theory are retail sale and cost accounting. Don’t allow any costs post retail sale and require a forensic examination of every business’s books to discover who is arbitrarily and anti-socially raising their prices.

P: I agree with Gerald. Well expressed.

This approach – stylized theory – is the approach of science. Science has been stunningly successful. Economics is harder than physics because to match real-world concepts and relationships to the idealised concepts and relationships is more difficult. So its success is not so stunning. But it does work to some extent.

Compare with the other social sciences which do not do the stylized theorising. They have nothing. No body of theory. Perhaps the fields of law and linguistics are partial exceptions but elsewhere in social science (psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science): zilch. Scholars in those fields do not have the sort of conversation that takes place in economics. They cannot.

So I think that economists should be glad to have a winning approach and that to attack the basic method is misguided. I say it is not the method but the premises which need attention. The basic premise of self-interest is not wrong but is incomplete. It seems to me that for economics to advance, working out stylized theoretical relationships premised on other social assumptions is necessary.

Altruism, for example, is as genuine a human motivator as self-interest. Economics ignores it. Yet it exists and has economic consequences. So the task would be to theorise altruism in the stylised way. I think that until this happens economics will not break out of its theoretical stasis.

Me: Precisely. And what is a more altruistic concept than Monetary Grace as in Gifting? The real problem isn’t just the fallacious theoretical assumptions of neo-liberal economics it’s the current problematic monopolistic monetary and financial paradigm concept that hasn’t changed for the entire course of human civilization.

Neo-liberal economist’s models are flawed alright, but so are libertarian’s models. They ‘re both afflicted by the same thing that Ptolemaic cosmologists were perplexed about before helio-centrism was found to be the actual reality. In other words all of their calculations were inaccurate because they operated within the current paradigm…instead of recognizing and confronting the new one.

Economists and economic pundits on both/all sides have to be willing to drop their orthodoxies, be willing to integrate certain of their beliefs with those of their critics and be willing to embrace the third-ness aspect of the dialectic. That’s because conceptual opposition is the hallmark of imminent paradigm change and the willingness to integrate is the hallmark of accomplished paradigm changes.

To resolve economics’ major problems change the current monopolistic monetary and financial paradigm of Debt Only to Debt and Strategically Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting at the point of retail sale. That would enable both greater individual and commercial monetary abundance while simultaneously implementing the impossible so far as orthodox theory is concerned, that is beneficial price and asset deflation.

“Economists assumed that the economic process happens in an abstract, no-space and no-time historical void.”

Real world temporal universe fact: Retail sale is the terminal ending point of the economic process, that is, it is where production exits the economy and becomes consumption. That economists have missed this shows how overly abstract and theoretical they have become. It also explains why they have not recognized the incredibly powerful potential for policy at that point. Thirdly, it explains how they have failed to see how private for profit money creation is a wholly exterior, parasitical, incredibly expensive POST retail sale set of costs and hence logically not a legitimate business model.

Empirical fact: Up to 97% of our money is created by accounting entries, i.e debits and credits. As Steve Keen has correctly bemoaned, “Economists can get their PhD in economics without taking so much as an elementary course in accounting.” This shows how ignorant they are of the most significant fact about money creation, namely it is most BASICALLY accounting

Given these facts, it is not surprising that economists and economic pundits are missing the temporal universe problem resolving and efficacious accounting implementation reality of a 50% Discount/Rebate policy at the point of retail sale.

Economists and economic pundits can run from/refuse to confront, confirm or engage these facts, but they cannot hide from them.

$0-1,000,000                                                     50%

$1,000,001-2,000,000                                      40%

$2,000,001-3,000,000                                      30%

$3,000,001-4,000,000                                      20%

$4,000,001-5,000,000                                      10%

$5,000,001- 6,000,000                                       5 %

$6,000,001-and up                                              0%

Me: I have dropped Graeber’s name here numerous times. Why? Because the problem in economics is money, private debt and banking. In other words everything surrounding finance. That is the paradigm that hasn’t changed since Sumeria and is begging us to consciously awaken to. What is a debt jubilee? Monetary Gifting. What is a UBI? Monetary Gifting. What are (or should be) fiscal deficits? Monetary Gifting. What is a 50% discount/rebate policy at retail sale? A completely integrated, direct, continuous and virtually universally beneficial Monetary Gift that utilizes and perfectly mimics the debit/credit accounting process of money creation. Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting, the policy essence of the new paradigm that will enable us to rejuvenate economics and effectively confront climate change.

T: As with my post above, what happens when fiat currency ends up being exchanged for real assets like mined minerals and fiat’s value is diminished by piles of it in the hands of the miners outside of the fiat issuing country and the recipient can find no party to accept? Then the hard assets end up in the hands of the financiers/rentiers. Then what? It seems like we end up with the same results that happened with The Enclosure?

Me: The obvious answer here is to create a true publicly administered national bank which, aligned with the new monetary and financial paradigm, is free to distribute credit in a socially beneficial way. Private money creation is a monopolistic, problematic business model which is the only business model allowed to extract costs post retail sale thus violating the consumer sanctity of retail sale. A public bank would innovate private money creation out of existence and it would make private money creation the shite picker upper occupation after the creation of the internal combustion engine.

Science is important, wonderful and necessary, and it exists as a wholly contained set within the broader mindset of wisdom/paradigm perception which is the ability to simultaneously perceive particularity and essence of operant factors so as to solve problems that appear to be in even inevitable conflict.

Chaos is likely an apparency ultimately resolved by contemplating the aspects of the natural philosophical concept of grace, like for instance unity and dynamism.

The outrage is spot on of course, but how many outraged speeches does it take to change things? The answer: A zillion with palliative reforms, or one more with the correct set of policy solutions to the most underlying problem because they align with the new paradigm concept that changes the operant conditions of the entire pattern under investigation.

The keys to paradigm perception are an integration of depth of knowledge, discernment of primacy of problems and willingness to embrace conceptual simplicity…because paradigms are single and singularly efficacious ideas which paired with aligned policies…change everything.

Let us perceive and act. The Martians are laughing and the earth and its inhabitants are moaning.