The study of the truths in opposites that integrated result in both the conceptual essence of ruling ideas, i.e. paradigms, and the mental and temporal patterns they create.

The present ethic/zeitgeist is Power. The ethic/zeitgeist of the new age is Grace which includes power that is guided and redeemed by same.

1   It’s a static balance sheet solution/policy.

There is nothing so dynamic and meaningful in the entirety of economics and the economic/productive process as a monetary policy that is executed at a terminal summing, ending, problem expression and pivotally inverting paradigm changing point, when after all, money is the most significantly powerful factor in a monetary economy. And that perfectly describes the Discount/Rebate policy at the point of retail sale.

2    The “powers that be” will never allow it.

This objection dramatizes the great Japanese military strategist Sun Tzu who correctly noted that if you can convince the enemy that going to war is useless…you will have won the war without even fighting. Don’t surrender. Be brave enough to fight, and smart enough to win.

3    It will make everyone lazy/It discourages work/purpose.

There are many, many wealthy people who lack purpose and probably even more poor/held down by the system people with the same problem. The fact is that, except for employment, of which much more will be available with the policies of Wisdomics-Gracenomics than if we don’t have such policies, creating positive and constructive purpose is an entirely separate process from employment. Employment is in actual fact a much smaller subset of all possible positive and constructive purposes, and having the time and monetary resources to pursue those purposes….is exactly what the policies of Wisdomics-Gracenomics will provide….everyone.

4    It’s just another theory.

Not correct. It is a new paradigm. A paradigm is simultaneously a single concept and an entirely new pattern that changes the present paradigm and resolves its deepest and most chronic problems…..with the reality of that single paradigm alone. Theories are what fit within a philosophy and a new paradigm so a paradigm is actually two mental integrations above theorizing.

5    Change must go step by step.

Reform is step by step and is as often as not a step forward and then a step or teo backward. Not so with a new paradigm which is discovered by the wise after contemplation of only the truths in the opposing perspectives which cannot seem, or will not even try to integrate those truths into a thirdness greater oneness that is the signature OF a new paradigm, but only contend and/or arrogantly make claim to the entire truth…despite the lingering problems that are always present before an imminent paradigm change. Paradigms are supremely mentally and temporally powerful and transformational occurrences.

Choosing a reform, a palliative or compromise when a new paradigm is possible…is actually an unethical act.

Taxes are not necessary in a truly and directly distributive money system with the policies of Wisdomics-Gracenomics.

Thus, give the wealthiest the option to the “Wealth Tax” of donating the same amount to socially beneficial charities. It’s more balanced and redeeming, and helps address problems long neglected by an economic and monetary system most basically focused  on profit and monetary accumulation.

C:  Since this is an economics blog, it is worth reciting some basic economic literacy:

Speaking of “costs”, “subsidies”, “market forces” “rigged markets” makes no logical sense at all in such a situation. It is gibberish based on specious, circular reasoning and falsehoods. Not understanding that is not understanding basic economics.

It’s like the old Jack Benny joke – The mugger says – “Your money or your life” Benny says – “I’m thinking”. Or more aptly, worrying about costs of renewables vs fossil fuels in a global warming scenario is like worrying about your wallet getting wet when you are drowning. It confuses means and ends.

The idea of global warming is that the true cost of all the fossil fuels we’ve burnt is enormously higher than previously thought. So oil, coal etc have been and are fantastically subsidized, enormously more than renewables ever have been. In any case, monetary costs are a side effect of government spending and taxation. BY DEFINITION, all markets are “rigged” – an unrigged “free” market is logically, not merely empirically impossible. Monetary costs cannot be used to ultimately determine what is spent and taxed – for that reverses causes and effects.

If global warming is anything like as bad as most climatologists say, then removing “subsidies” from renewables – is in reality subsidizing fossil fuels and enormously destructive activities using them. It is lunacy, not something to be celebrated. Of course that renewables are declining in real costs even in this environment is something to be celebrated – it is saying that even with today’s enormous and insane subsidies to them, fossil fuels are becoming “uneconomic.”

Me:  Precisely, and that is why having a publicly administered non-profit national and central banking system that would be at arm’s length from the other three branch’s of government is essential if we are going to ever get serious about issues like global warming, and stabilizing an economy already plagued by lack of monetary democracy and that has no where to go but get worse with the only getting started disruptive force of AI unless of course we awaken to an intelligent implementation of the new paradigm of Abundantly Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting at the point of retail sale.

Also, “In any case, monetary costs are a side effect of government spending and taxation.”

Yes, under the current paradigm this is correct…because a FLOW of Debt Only is an INHERENTLY BURDENSOME FLOW of cost. This is not the crank idea that interest is the be all and end all of our economic and monetary problems. It is the recognition that a monopolistic paradigm of Debt Only tied to profit making systems which will always attempt to cut costs IS UNECONOMIC…..unless a new paradigm of Abundantly Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting is integrated into that system.

What is the “retail product” of a commodities exchange? What if there was a policy of a 10% discount/rebate on every futures contract, and the purchaser of that contract was able to count that discount as profit….IF they did not increase their prices except for valid and actual increase in their business costs…..and were taxed severely if they did?

What if we abolished the charter for money creation by private banks and instituted an arm’s length publicly administered national banking system and central bank that might allow some, but looked intensively askance at large speculative leveraging in order to inflate asset and commodities prices? One that would also completely wind down the mountainous debt from derivatives from before the GFC and let the chips fall where they may for the opposing parties….and never allow any such idiocy in the future?

These are a couple of the policies, regulations and structural changes of Wisdomics-Gracenomics.

Let us end the de-stabilizing speculative, casino-like financialization of the economy and, with the concept behind the new paradigm create a more prosperous re-retailization of same.

And if the commodities and stock exchanges want to collude with each other not to implement or to game the policy in some way….I’m sure some savvy investors will be happy to start up new exchanges. Competition. It’s always an economic virtue.

Tax incentives not to inflate and tax discouragements for inflating. Also, tax discouragements for dominant businesses who try to destroy competition with excessive price deflation in addition to the discount/rebate policy.

Use bully pulpit, and if necessary, follow through on expulsion from rebate policy against gamers, the unappreciative and the anti-social.

Encourage the process of innovation, but make any disruptively competitive innovations relatively rapidly available for all.

The 50% discount/rebate policy at retail sale cuts through all of the complexities and orthodoxies of modern economic theories and accomplished paradigm change in economics and money systems. Of course there will need to be further regulations and policies to keep the new paradigm change from being gamed and de-stabilized, but as with every genuine paradigm change the deepest and most chronic problems will be resolved and the systems will be forever changed.

JJ:  It seems to me that unemployment should not be a factor in defeating inflation; better that jobs (good paying jobs with benefits) be created by the government than having the Fed always afraid of inflation and therefore increasing the interest rate. Inflation includes giving better wages for workers who have had wage stagnation for years. Why shouldn’t workers be able to increase their incomes just as those CEOs in the 1% do (and outrageously at that)? There certainly is a huge inequality at play here.

Me:  Or implementing price deflation into profit making systems with a high percentage discount/rebate policy at the point of consumption where all costs, prices and the terminal expression point of inflation end for every consumer product and service.

With such an abundant increase in potential business revenue….I’m sure there would be a lot more employment as a result.

E:  In Chapter 9 of his book, The End of Normal, Jamie Galbraith uses four words to discuss the Big Crash of 2007: counterfeit, laundering, fencing and mark. These words are commonly used together to describe crimes. Galbraith, artfully as ever, takes his colleagues to task for ignoring the fact that, in the run-up to the Big Crash, much specific crime was committed by the financial world and its government handmaidens. He points out that thousands of people were convicted of similar crimes in the savings-and-loan scandals of the 80s, but not much conviction in the wake of the Big Crash. And here again an article by a prominent economist that ignores the criminal aspect.

Me:  Indeed. The elite Bankers benefit from the same kind of blindness, unconsciousness and lack of ethical sensitivity of old paradigms as Trump does from his cult of personality base.

Ah, there is a crying need for the science of wisdom to bring clarity, efficacy and the natural philosophical concept of grace….in order to sort it all out…and rejuvenate the several systems that are currently stymied.

JT:  Hi Andrew,

I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with you on the “two-pronged” approach, and the belief that Social Credit can be furthered by tying in with the Public Bank advocates.  To me, this is just another well-intentioned attempt on our part in believing our best chances lie in playing second fiddle to some group that ostensibly shares our philosophy.  But in reality, doesn’t.

The 100 year history of Social Credit is replete with example after example where this has been tried,  repeatedly ~ and failed.

First it was with the ‘socialists’ of the British Labor Party, to whom Douglas and his colleague, Orage, made their pitch over the future of the British coal industry.  They came close, but the prized breakthrough was still elusive.  Labor rejected them and their ideas in favour of  outright nationalization.  Which, decades later, it finally achieved, but really to no one’s benefit.

Then there was a cozying up to the new borne Fascists, and the idea that if  Mussolini had straightened things out in Italy,  the same could be done elsewhere.  We’d  graft our monetary ideas into their movement, and victory would be ours.  The Fascists had about as much use for actual Social Credit as British Labor had, and pretty soon Oswald Moseley’s Black Shirts clobbered any of John Hargreaves’ Green Shirts that were peddling Social Credit just the same way they’d clobber anyone else.  Two strikes out.

Let’s try elsewhere, there must be some group somewhere we can attach ourselves to.  Let’s try Christianity.  With God on our side, His only given Son, too, and the Dean of Canterbury, (before he went Commie),  and “Bible Bill” Aberhart leading the charge in Alberta, a new day surely will be dawning.  How can we fail?   Great effort, but again, a diffused direction.  So Alberta, and later British Columbia, where I live, got ‘Social Credit’, in name, at least, but the actual substance still proved as largely illusive as the Christianity of which it was supposed to be the ‘practical’ aspect.

But we didn’t stop there.  After the war, when it became clear that Stalin’s Russia didn’t exactly share the same values of western democracy we did, even though we’d fought together to defeat the Axis, we through our lot in with the “better dead than Red” crowd.  Molotov might well have once  made the comment that Social Credit was the one thing the Communists feared, but that didn’t help us put our ideas into practice with these seemingly like-minded political travelers either.  No doubt they welcomed our bodies, to swell their numbers, but not our minds or the philosophy behind our monetary ideas.

Never say die.  Lets try our hand with the Environmental Movement.  It had momentum, and surely a philosophy such as ours would be taken up by those concerned as to why the world had to always do much more than was actually needed to access financially that which was.  But their guiding lights, too, march to the tune of a different drummer.

And now, and I’ve no doubt not given a complete list, here, we’re going to try to co-opt Public Banking.  In my view we’re wasting our time.  Again.  If we’ve got something worth offering then get up on our own two legs and offer it.  Put it in a form that shows what it could do to deal with the very real concerns presently occupying the minds of the public.  REAL concerns, not imagined ones that no one is actually interested in.  Then let any group that wants to come in with us, come to us.  Instead of our always sucking the hind tit trying to get some sustenance from them.  Those are  my thoughts on it anyways.

JS:  Hi Joe,

Me:  Integration of truths is wisdom and the pinnacle philosophical concept of wisdom is grace as in an abundant interactive, integrative flow of truths. Schism is the paradigm of science which is fine, but as science is really just a sub mindset of wisdom it will never have the entire and resolving truth that comprehensively resolves. Show the advocates and the mass of individuals how a solution includes and completes the truths they are advocating and it makes it harder for them to argue against the fuller solution.