The ultimate wisdom of graciousness has always been the route to peace and prosperity….not enforced austerity by governments….or by the monopolistic paradigm of finance.

Steve Hummel 01/20/2019

The problem is it’s all very erudite…but old paradigm thinking. As I have said here before macro-economics being a very recent discipline born into the very thoroughly integrated paradigm of Debt Only is actually destined to fixate on interminably obscuring and exterior-ly enforced unresolvable problems.

The answer is to reverse the parasitic and de-stabilizing financialization of the economy by making Monetary Gifting the new and primary paradigm and then craft policies at strategic points like the point where production becomes consumption so as to accomplish the re-retailization of the economy.

Walt,

I completely understand your attempt to make a good general and positive statement, and I’m sure the majority could sign on to it. By all means proceed.

I would only suggest taking that message directly to the individual at least as vigorously as lobbying politicians and tailoring THAT message to their obvious self interests (and the interests of the small to medium sized businessman as well) as blatantly and mathematically understandable as possible. That’s how MLK, Jr and Ghandi did it. Grassroots and obvious self interests.

Sample script: “With a non-profit publicly administered central bank and national banking system we could reduce the cost of a $300k house by say 50% at note signing and make it at 0% interest on a 10 year note thats a $625/mo. payment. 10 years and you’re an actual owner of your home instead of a renter of the Banks for 30 years. That way the system will serve us instead of us having to serve the system.”

(actually it could be lowered to $75k because with a 50% reduction at retail sale it could already be reduced to $150k, but that’s my job to communicate…unless of course Public Banking and Wisdomics-Gracenomics were to integrate with each other).

Yes, Public Banking and the policies of social credit/Wisdomics-Gracenomics could be a very powerful synthesis. A public banking system preferablt a national one with the monetary authority fully in line with it is necessary….but if I may make one more point. Reforms can be undone or even reversed. A paradigm change, not so. Humanity never went back to hunting and gathering after we cognited on the abundance of agriculture. We never went back to Ptolemaic cosmolgy after helio-centrism became apparent. And scarcity enforced by the self interests of private finance and its paradigm of Debt/Burden/Additional Costs Only will never rise again if we awaken to the new paradigm of Abundantly Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting. This is what the big debate on the social credit list is presently about.

The 50% discount/rebate policy of my Wisdomics-Gracenomics is the very expression of the new paradigm, and the realization that a high percentage discount/rebate at the point of retail sale is the discovery of the telescope of economic theory. Why? Because if you implement a high percent reduction in price at that particular (systemic ending, costs and price summing and terminal expression point for inflation) point….you can pour virtually as much money into the economy as you so please….and never have to worry about inflation because normal garden variety inflation is virtually always a smal single digit number due to the costliness of fixed capital intensive modern economies and competition, and hyper-inflations never occur without prior disastrous circumstances and a compliant central bank that leverages up speculators who short the currency and initiate the actual hyper aspect of it.

Douglas and latter day social crediters are very smart, but they have not recognized the paradigm changing power of the retail discount policy they’ve advocated now for almost 90 years.

Starting a mass movement advocating Public Banking and showing the individual and the businessman how the numbers of what a 50% discount/rebate policy will do for both the individual’s purchasing power (doubling it) and enterprise (doubling the potential money available for their products and services), concisely showing how the tipping point of retail sale is so systemically powerful and showing how that policy is the very expression OF the new paradigm will win the hearts of individuals AND businessmen and be a winning political strategy at the same time.

JR:  Modern Social Crediters, at least here in NZ, have NEVER advocated a discount policy  for two reasons:

Me:  All of your objections are simply social credit orthodoxies (and a couple of kiwi ones tossed in) that never fully cognited on the systemic and paradigm changing effects of the discount policy.  The abundant discount/rebate policy IS a SYSTEMIC effect because its at the ending point of production where it becomes CONSUMPTION and the terminal expression point for any and all inflation. Has anyone here ever paid $100 for groceries and when you got home the grocer called you and said, “Sorry, we have to have another $25 for those groceries.” Never. That’s because the point of retail sale is the SYSTEMIC ending point for every consumer item, the summing point of all costs and prices for same and the terminal expression point for inflation. It’s also the potentially paradigm changing policy point….if you make the discount sufficiently large.

JR: Steve, you might win this discussion, but not by retreating further into vagaries.

Me: Okay John

“NOBODy has ever shown clearly how it could be funded”

That’s simple John. The same way that money as debt funds it now, ex nihilo. Only difference is its a gift of money that the individual doesn’t have to pay back.

“and NOBODY has ever shown how a “Just Price” could be calculated and enforced over the thousands of items available on the market in different circumstances involving different costs to retailers.”

The concept of a “just price” is flawed and completely unnecessary and irrelevant mostly because it assumes there is a necessity to have a macro-economic monetary equilibrium….which there doesn’t have to be. Social crediters lived in classical economics which assumed general equilibrium. That has been de-bunked thoroughly. As for prices on the market in different circumstances involving different costs to retailers that is equally irrelevant. There are different prices for the same product by different producers now and that won’t change. If Libby’s lima beans are $1.50 and Wal Mart’s lima beans are $1.20 with the 50% discount they’ll sell for $.75 and $.60 respectively.

“In addition, a rate set as high as 50% would make it impossible to apply the fundamental SoCred principle of an independent Credit Authority determining how much new money a government could put into circulation , to balance the exact needs of the economy at the time. To avoid either demand inflation of deflation.”

There’s the general equilibrium flawed orthodoxy creeping into your thinking again. The high percentage discount/rebate policy at retail sale PREVENTS ANY CHANCE OF INFLATION. Why? Because as I have said repeatedly normal garden variety inflation is a low single digit percentage and hyper inflations do not occur except in specific disastrous circumstances. Furthermore, if a retailer raises his prices more than he normally does and his competitor does not or even lowers them due to the cost savings for them enabled by implementing the high percentage discount/rebate…just how long is it going to take the consumer to see this and buy from his competitor instead. And if they do the program I advocate will tax the difference between whatever revenues that they garnered by arbitrarily inflating their prices and what they would have earned by not doing so….by 110%.

“To anyone giving it some thought, it must be apparent that it would benefit the very rich rather than the ordinary citizen. 50% of the costs of luxury yachts and personal jet liners would somewhat overshadow the return on a loaf of bread.”

That’s the economics of envy which is emotionally negative and probably a good way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I will say however that my idea of a 50% tax on any income above $50,000,000/yr. for charitable, philanthropic and/or to fund research and innovation for ecological sustainability ought to help those crazed by monetary accumulation to find greater positive and constructive purpose.

“Behind all this, there is the need to get debt out of the system so that large proportions of local taxes (“rate”s in our terms) are no longer channeled into interest charges.”

Which is precisely what the high percentage discount/rebate does. Especially with my innovation of extending the 50% discount to the point of note signing for homes and other big ticket items. That way a $300k home would be reduced to $150 k at retail sale and to $75k at note signing with the non-profit national banking system….and at 0% interest to boot. That would be a $625/mo. payment on a 10 year note instead of a much more expensive $300k note @ 5% for 30 years. Wisdomics-Gracenomics will create the first true ownership economy and instead of the state “withering away” as Marx envisioned the real problem behind government, i.e. finance and its paradigm of Debt Only will be doing so.

JR:  That’s the way post-WW1 hyperinflation was engendered to counter reparations in Germany.  I understand they were surprised that for a start, production just rose to meet increased demand, but when they cranked it up to so0mething approaching the level you intend, it started.

Me:   “I understand they were surprised that for a start, production just rose to meet increased demand, but when they cranked it up to so0mething approaching the level you intend,
> it started.”

That was not the reason for the hyper-inflation. It was merely a little higher than normal inflation until the German central bank leveraged up a bunch of speculators who shorted the currency and that is when the hyperinflation occurred.

“Do I infer that you would also use new money for infrastructure etc?  And a dividend.”

Of course why not? With the high percentage discount/rebate policy in effect there cannot be inflation and the country’s infrastructure is literally falling apart.

“You assume that competition would still work when every retailer (or purchaser) would get the discount regardless of the price set?!!!!”

Of course it would. And because my policies would eliminate the costs of transfer taxes competition for market share would probably intensify. I’m sorry, you keep bringing this unfounded fear up, but it’s just a kiwi mistaken understanding of the mechanism and power of the discount/rebate policy…especially a high percentage one that I advocate.

“The pertinent point with Social Credit is that it would design its moves carefully and responsibly to attain a steady-state economy.  This is something that orthodox economists consider impossible,, but S C understands the cause of instability.  They don’t.”

A steady state economy is a classical economic orthodoxy and is not the solution. The solution is the free flowing “higher disequilibrium” of an abundance ratio of total individual incomes to total costs/prices….enabled by the high percentage discount/rebate policy.

LA:  Actually Steve, I agree and disagree with you on this point.  I think your proposals can work but I also believe the equilibrium of the Just-Price mechanism will work too. Now why do I think your proposals will work?  That’s simple.  The public’s desire to consume is most definitely finite.  There is only so much square footage in my house to fill.  I don’t need 17 refrigerators and eventually when I have the one I like, I will just keep it until it wears out.  In our economy, people don’t buy junk anymore because there is no shortage of purchasing power.  Everyone gets what they really want and we all want things that don’t break.  It is inconvenient to have to go out and buy “it” again.  So the point is that it doesn’t matter what the price is – as long as we have the means to get what we want or need.

Me:  Thanks Liam,

Again I appreciate everyone’s thinking here. My only point both here and on the social credit list is….why settle for a better but mere theory when you can have a genuine paradigm/sea change? Either way the naysayers and conscious and unconsciously bought are going to hurl invective and invalidation at us….but if you take the strikingly beneficial message of a paradigm change DIRECTLY to the individual and to large normally opposing constituencies like the small to medium sized business community….you will command their attention and be able to utilize that more ethical and beneficial message to herd the enitre political apparatus toward its implementation.

KZ:  Why can’t a worker have both? A defined benefits pension provided entirely by the employer that provides a known and fixed (adjusted for inflation) annual amount for the worker’s entire life span. The pension would be guaranteed by the federal government. And a defined contributions plan (offered at several levels of contributions) in which 50% of contributions come from the employer and 50% from the workers. The income from this plan would continue till saved funds are exhausted. Together these provide a basic and non-ending income for the worker, while providing supplemental funds to help in the purchase of big items.

Me:  They COULD have a defined benefit “pension” for their entire adult life with a $1000/mo. universal dividend that with a 50% discount at retail sale enabled them to purchase $2000/mo worth of goods and services. Furthermore, if we implemented a non-profit publicly administered national banking system and extended the 50% discount/rebate policy to the point of note creation they could purchase big ticket items like a $300k house reduced to $150 k at retail sale….to $75 k at 0% interest at note signing…because a non-profit banking system does not need to make a profit and creates money , like we do now, ex nihilo, so they can just reduce it by half or whatever percentage is decided upon….and no one suffers and everyone benefits because the system now serves man instead of man having to slavishly serve the system. Nice huh?

MM:  Craig, I suppose there’s a valid use-case for calling it merely the “Debt Only” paradigm but, tho this is a heady academic arena, I think calling it the piracy paradigm or klrptocracy paradigm or, for econometric techies, the plutonomy paradigm. It also seems worth pointing out the financialization of culture, the inherently collateral corruption of civilization and the corrupt dyseducation of human minds. Not sure what you mean by re-retailization of the same old con-game. Yet, the only possible solution I see is a new alternative that supports & sustains nontoxic, non-ecocidal culture, globally. Now, I need to get back to establishing the GCDA & GCCS as actual realities. Cheers ~

Me:  I call it the paradigm of Debt or Debt/Burden/Additional Cost Only because that specific paradigm (there are many unconsciously bouncing around inside every individual’s head) is most problematically relevant to economics. The other labels you put on them are accurate as well, but I like focusing in the primary/operant causes. I believe its one of the aspects of what I refer to as paradigm perception and as paradigms are integrative wholistic “things” themselves (they are a single concept that describe and define entire patterns) they reflect the process of wisdom itself.
From your other post to me that’s why I call my work Wisdomics-Gracenomics because its the thing that economic theorizing is most missing, that is wisdom and its pinnacle natural philosophical concept of grace whose various aspects have actually always been behind every historical paradigm change. I’ve mentioned here many times that wisdom includes the scientific method within it. Perhaps I could call it Scientific Wisdomics-Gracenomics and now that I think of it that might be better as it is a trinity-unity-oneness mental analytic process which squares with the subject of one of my other books The Cosmic Code which emphasizes the unitary trinitarian process itself which spoken is: an integrated duality within an integrative trinity-unity-oneness-process. You could fit it into the cosmic code either as

[(Science x Wisdom) —> Gracenomics ] or

[ (Economics x Wisdom) —> Wisdomics-Gracenomics ]

At any rate trinity-unity-oneness-process is seen throughout logic, mathematics, nature, consciousness studies/spirituality, etc. etc.

[ (1 + 2) —> 3 ], [ (2 + 3) —> 5 ], —> the Fibonacci sequence

Hegel’s dialectic

[ (the symmetrical sides of a leaf) —> the stem from which they both arose ]

[ (the abreactive/irrational dualistic character of a zen koan)
—> satori ]

[ (capitalism x socialism) —> The profit making system of Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Distributism ]

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

To me finance isn’t a legitimate business model at all. Money being the life’s blood of individual and commercial survival and yet it dominates everyone and every other business model….instead of serving them. Money is a great tool that I see no real reason to alter or abandon, but enabling/justifying its power to dominate is a form of negative ethics. To me it’s not real to think that finance can be/remain a profit making business model. In order to rationally and ethically control the power and necessity of finance it must become a non-profit public utility that is guided by the unimpeachable concept and ethic of grace.

By “the re-retailization” of the economy I mean doing the above with finance, realizing that the purpose of production is consumption and that retail sale is the point where the former becomes the latter and that without the 5000 year old dominating and de-stabilizing intrusion of both its private and publicly administered varieties (unless of course the latter is, again, guided by the concept of grace) we could have a stable, fair, ethical and much more abundant economy for all….by focusing on the bringing of production to the point of consumption/retail sale.

MM:  Also, Craig, I think your list of Maslow’s factors are upside down. Also, zeitgeist/ethic of the era seems intrinsically inseparable from the dominant paradigm (the commonly accepted model of consensual reality).

Me:  Yes, research/Data Gathering is the bottom, Ethic/Zeitgeist is the top. An ethic of the age is the purest expression of a paradigm and the acculturation of it. Grace is the next zeitgeist for not only economics, but everything from physics to spirituality. Grace being the ultimate integrative trinity-unity-oneness-process of everything….how can it not be so. The recognition of grace as the answer in and of each and everything/the cosmos is actually the holographic insight (every part is and has all of the essential aspects/parts of the whole…and vice versa)

RL:  Beware of collective nouns.

Me:  Of course. But we should also seek them. Even though parochial religion is almost certainly delusive, if we do not seek the EXPERIENCES of god in order to self actualize them we live a hapless, one eyed, pitiful and potentially dangerous existence.

RL:  So you are the world historical figure through whom the experiences of god are being self actualized. Its a messy business. Hegel thought Napoleon was a world historical figure fulfilling this role and N said what are the lives of a million men to a man like myself. Start by valuing the lives of every individual, or you end up a mass murderer.

Me:  Of course I never made any such claim. I DO claim that is everyone’s adult responsibility though. The clarity of present time is a lot less messy than science or any other orthodoxy.

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

Me:  Michael,
MM:  “Craig, I do see what you mean, but the dialog with RL proves my point.
For example, you both resorted to theology & philosophy without achieving any generally acceptable upgrade of economics or its fractured paradigm, meta-economics.

ME:  Actually I didn’t resort to theology, but rather natural philosophy/spirituality which is Buddhist to the core. And if looked at and understood I’ve (over and over) described the concept and temporal universe effects of the new paradigm. It’s just that it’s still going splat! whenever it hits orthodoxy and mind filters created by same. But I soldier on. 🙂

MM:  “Theological arguments & doctrines & dogma & terms seem woefully inappropriate to the task. Any valid science is based on discovering what is, beyond mere belief & opinion.
Spirituality, religion and religious beliefs, maxims, etc., are clearly potent noetic elements and motivators of human cultural activity. Hence, they can and should be considered for realistic analysis. Yet, they cannot be determining elements of scientific theory and practice.”

Me:  I agree. However, grace (or any other word other wisdom traditions hang on it like satori-kensho, samadhi, atonement, “the friend”, moksha, etc. is referring to the same experience. Also, grace as in the dynamic, interactive, integrative flow of the cosmos (shiva’s dance etc. plug in the wisdom tradition concept) IS the most cutting edge quantum physics description of ACTUAL temporal universe reality so there’s no mere duality necessary to argue about and one can see (if they drop their own mind filters) that the ultimate reality is the integrative trinity-unity-oneness-process of the cosmic code that recognizes that all perspectives/realities and their opposites have truth in them including the existential reality of human consciousness that perceives and can unify them. After all as the zen saying goes: Wherever you go there YOU are.

Wisdom includes Science, and there is no necessary conflict between the two.

Finally, grace as in love in action is identical to the Buddhist “compassionate wisdom” so far as I can logically discern.

I sense you’ll be agreeing with me in this post.

The “discipline” of macro-economics is really just a recent obfuscatory means of avoiding looking at the paradigm of Debt Only and the almost complete coalescence of the financialization of economies….and the the resolution of that mistake is the re-retailization of same.

Steve Hummel 01/16/2019

C3000:  MMT gets a lot of it right but bottom line, MMT is basically apologists of the existing system, showing how, through policy, the most that can be derived from the existing system. Many are advocating for basic changes in the monetary system such as Ellen Brown (Public Banks), Joe Firestone (T$ coins) and there are those who still favor the Chicago Plan.

Me:  @charles3000,

MMT’s main draw back is that it is mainly focused on government debt when the continuous build up of private debt is the bigger and more salient point.

Yes, MMT has value because its anti-austerity which aligns with abundance and monetary gifting which are aspects of the new paradigm all of which align with the natural philosophical concept of grace. Steve Keen’s de-bunking of DSGE and disequilibrium theory and Minsky’s financial instability theory also align with the new paradigm, it’s just that he hasn’t cognited on the fact that policies strategically crafted around the new paradigm of abundantly direct and reciprocal monetary gifting and grace as in a dynamic, interactive, integrative free flowing state and process of “higher disequilibrium” is what will complete his theorizing.

Michael Hudson’s theory identifying the key structural economic problem of financial parasitism and his historical research regarding debt jubilees which is a form of monetary gifting would be completed by the new paradigm as well.

Some here mistakenly think that my focus on money is intellectually isolated, fragmentary and cranky. They miss the main thrust of my thinking which is the integrative ethic and its pinnacle concept. I’m continually pointing at the concept that defines the new monetary, economic and financial paradigm and even the concept behind that and every historical paradigm change, and identifying realities at that level and higher. I have posted this scale here several times. It is a scale of the levels of mental integration that one can approach problems and solutions from, and each level contains the thinking of the levels below it. Unfortunately but inevitably minds focused on whatever level they are habituated to are generally scantily conscious of the levels above and so have trouble self actualizing the realities that exist there. This is Maslow’s psychologically correct pyramid.

Ascending from bottom to top it is:

Zeitgeist/Ethic of the Age

Paradigm/Pattern

Philosophy/Wisdom

Theory

Research/Data Gathering

JH:  Craig, you are mistaken in thinking that MMT is mainly focused on public debt and you are also mistaken in thinking that MMters are unaware of the the importance and significance of the gradual buildup of private debt, and your assumption that MMTers do not prioritize tackling the problem of excessive private debt is simply wrong. MMTers as a whole are well aware of the ideas and insights of Minsky.

Me:  John H,

I didn’t say they were unaware of it. Whenever I hear them or read what many of them say that’s almost all they clamor on about. My point was actually that they don’t seem to be aware of what the concept of the new paradigm actually is and so they have at least one foot planted squarely in the current/old one, namely Debt/Burden/Additional Cost Only. They rail against a universal dividend in favor of a job guarantee which again shows that their remedies fall within the paradigm of Work For Pay Only, and like almost every economist other than social crediters have absolutely no awareness of the policy expression of the new paradigm itself of direct and reciprocal monetary gifting (and social crediters on the list I know you’re aware of can’t/won’t think innovative-ly with Douglas which means they’re happy to only come up with a superior theory instead of a paradigm change and there’s a helluva lot more benefit with the latter than the former.

I’m not intending to slam anyone actually, I pointed out how MMT and other theorists align with the new paradigm, just trying to get others to think on that higher level of mental integration.

KZ:   Frank, differential equations are part of humanly constructed mathematics. Such equations are thus “human aspects.” I don’t really understand what you are referring to when you say “physical reality of economics.” Economics supposedly studies economic actions and actors. Which parts are the “physical” and which are not?

Me:  Ken, I’ll give you a physical/empirical/temporal universe economic result. The point where production becomes consumption, i.e. retail sale for human beings and commercial agents. And as that is the ending, summing and terminal expression point of all costs and prices including profit and any and all inflation for the physical stuff of production, a simple digital ( -,+ ) monetary policy of sufficient percentage like say 50% can instantaneously double everyone’s purchasing power, potentially double the available business revenue for all enterprises and completely invert modern technologically advanced fixed capital intensive economies inflationary tendencies into painless and beneficial price deflation.

Summing, ending and terminal expression points are also tipping points which have inherent paradigmatic power, and the actual new insights and basic operations of every historical paradigm change have been simple and yet potent enough to be transformational. Like going from a nomadic hunting and gathering existence to homesteading, agriculture and city states. Like the inversion of the position of the earth and the sun. Like Debt Only for the sole form and vehicle for the distribution of money to strategically implemented Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting.

R:  Craig, While I agree that any cash disbursements will increase buying power and make everyone temporarily better off, more people will qualify for loans and borrow until increased debt destroys any gains. The lenders can always attach all surplus and let the people suffer.

Me:   rddulin,

Not if we have a publicly administered national banking and central banking system that is fully at arms reach from the other branches of government and that is guided by the pinnacle concept of wisdom one of whose aspects is dynamic, interactive and integrative balance. As a public banking system can do everything good that a private banking system does and a helluva lot less that is destructive, and again, is guided by the supreme ethical concept of grace it is Occam’s Razor and common sense that we implement that system. And that’s why it is a major structural plank in Wisdomics-Gracenomics.

Paradigm changes are entire pattern changes and we have to think wholistically to see them while also recognizing that structures within the old paradigm that are dominating and diametrically opposed to the concept of the new paradigm will of necessity have to yield to that new paradigm. And of course history tells us that we never regress back to old paradigms after they are accomplished…because they are such obvious and generally beneficial changes. Hence everything adapts to the new paradigm….not the other way around.

KZ:  Craig, how about where production becomes a recognizable product, and where that product becomes a commodity, and where that commodity is put out for sale. These seem more important to me. Craig, I agree that treating one dollar as if it were two dollars increases purchasing power, but only if this applies to the both the selling and buying ends of commodity exchange. If that’s the case, in a few months or at most years, everyone will adjust to the change in value, and commodity exchanges will go on as before.

If you’re searching for tipping points in economic transactions, try these. Forming the company or firm, choosing the products to turn into commodities, and deciding how to price the commodities. Traditional economics says in a market all participants are “price takers.” I can tell you with absolute certainty (since I’ve seen this process in action) that there are price takers and “price makers.” The latter have more than an advantage. They often control what’s sold and the price paid.

Me: @ Ken,

“how about where production becomes a recognizable product, and where that product becomes a commodity, and where that commodity is put out for sale.”

You just described retail sale.

“I agree that treating one dollar as if it were two dollars increases purchasing power, but only if this applies to the both the selling and buying ends of commodity exchange. If that’s the case, in a few months or at most years, everyone will adjust to the change in value, and commodity exchanges will go on as before.”

Not if participation in the discount/rebate policy is dependent upon raising prices at retail only on the basis of actual and valid additional costs. As I enumerated before the synergistic effect of pairing the dividend with the discount is that taxation for welfare, unemployment insurance and social security will enable enterprise to eliminate a significant amount of costs so it will be extremely difficult to justify cost increases unless something truly disastrous like loss of a large part of productive capacity for some reason. Also, fixed costs in modern technologically advanced capital intensive economies are very high and competition between and within business models does exist. So if a business wants to inflate their prices they risk losing market share. Most importantly, why would reasonable decision makers want to risk losing their participation rights in a system that doubles the potential revenue for their products and services and if they lose that right they have to get $10 for their product while their competitors only have to get $5 and yet with the rebate still get $10????

Of course as I also pointed out the world is not an entirely rational or ethical place so along with the stick of losing participation rights in the generally beneficial new system, as with any system you could have regulation like economic sin taxes to discourage arbitrary price increases (or excessive price cutting by dominant commercial actors) and tax incentives for honest cost accounting and price decisions.

Market worshiping is only for the faith based economic theorists. Wisdomics-Gracenomics is a highly sensitive ethical system based on wisdom which is the integration of the practical and the ideal….and which also knows the heart of man is basically good…but flawed.

KZ:  Craig, thanks. This helps a lot. Your positions are now much clearer. Controlling prices is a difficult and potentially dangerous activity. For 30 years I’ve worked in regulation, mostly economic, environmental, and safety. Unlike Europe and Japan where economic regulation (including price) are more widely seen as beneficial, such regulation in the US is sometimes seen as inflating prices and harming consumers in other ways. Negotiating such regulation in the US is difficult at best and in bad situations is a nightmare. Keep this in mind. In my view economic regulation should not be about economics but rather about community welfare and strength. I can win this position in Europe, Japan, and even China. But not in the US. Which remains the spoiled brat among nations.

Me:  Ken @ 11:04,

“Negotiating such regulation in the US is difficult at best and in bad situations is a nightmare. Keep this in mind. In my view economic regulation should not be about economics but rather about community welfare and strength. I can win this position in Europe, Japan, and even China. But not in the US. Which remains the spoiled brat among nations.”

I would suggest the reason it is (or appears) so difficult is because economists and pundits focus only on the complexities of their discipline and have mostly only put the tip of their toes into visualizing the new MONETARY AND FINANCIAL paradigm which is the elephant in the room and the key to cutting the Gordian knot that ties the two biggest problems that plague modern economies, namely individual monetary scarcity and yet price and asset inflation.

I must have posted a hundred times that the process of wisdom is the integration of factors, truths, etc. in opposing perspectives. Therefore a wise and winning political strategy would be integrating the best aspects of the agendas of opposing parties into a more beneficial set of programs and economic policies….and the policies and regulations of Wisdomics-Gracenomics do exactly that.

They double everyone’s purchasing power and so every business’s potential revenue. That’s a quintessential integration of the interests of opposing political constituencies.

They enable lower taxation and elimination or major downsizing of government bureaucracies while simultaneously eliminating poverty and guaranteeing greater economic democracy than any pol or economist has ever figured out.

If you’re a republican or a democrat and don’t like the hollowing out of our economy by globalization just implement the two major policies of Wisdomics-Gracenomics and then you can rapidly re-industrialize the country in the most efficient technologically advanced and ecologically sane manner possible and not have to worry about unemployment or inflation.

And if you’re EVERYONE and you hate the private banks who “own the joint” why not end their curiously anti-free enterprise monopolistic money creating powers and their equally monopolisitic and dominating paradigm of Debt/Burden/Additional Costs Only…with Abundantly Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting at the summing, ending and terminal expression point of the economic process for every product and service at retail sale?

Me:  Why not make the discount at retail sale 50%? That way both individual potential purchasing power and business revenue will be doubled. And because retail sale is the terminal ending point of the entire legitimate economic/productive process, the terminal summing point for all costs and so prices for every consumer item and finally the terminal expression point for all forms of inflation a 50% reduction in retail price actually painlessly and beneficially integrates price deflation into profit making systems.

Me:  There’s no need to quibble over numbers. You could just as easily make the Dividend $1500/mo with a 33% discount/rebate that would enable everyone to purchase $1995/mo, or make the dividend $1600/mo with a 25% dividend and then everyone can purchase $2000/mo. All of the “knock on” benefits of reduced transfer taxation for the individual and enterprise could thus still be implemented.

JS:  Hi Steve,

Me:  Well, good luck getting social credit going without showing large bi-partisan constituencies like workers and businessmen exactly how social credit is going to benefit them.

AW:   Hi Steve,

I have to acknowledge that what you say does make a lot of sense at least on paper but I am not sure how it would go in the real world. I am sure there could be a few variables out there that could put pressure on these numbers. I believe the safest and wisest way to approach this would be on more on a scientific basis.

We could do this slowly in a number of increments until we get the magic number that works. Waiting for the result of each increment will give us the opportunity to observe its effect on the economy first so we can act accordingly.  If for example we get our figures wrong in these small increments it can be fixed easily without to much damage to our credibility. By going slowly the population will see that the foundation we are working on is strong and that it is credible. The continued rising growth of affordability without excess inflation will do wonders, I’m sure.

There is also the issue of wasteful production Jim has mentioned about. I’m sure we could regulate what products are able to utilise this discount rate on. So in other words blatant wasteful production could be penalised by reduced discount or none at all. I am sure that over a period of a few years the desired changes for quality long life products will be a reality and with it more leisure time and a more sustained environment.

Me:  Thanks for replying Andrew.  I can understand caution, but the fact remains social credit has gone absolutely no where since WW II started and distracted everyone, Keynes became the fall back position of finance to it and Douglas and social credit got virtually erased from history.

AW:  Thanks Steve,

You are speaking my language. Yes, Social Credit has almost become an extinct tiger that has so much potential. Yet, no one knows this more than the private banking system themselves. They really feel threatened by Social Credit because it has all the tools needed to eventually dismantle them. They have managed to silence us and keep us in check all these years. This needs to change.

As you say just using the National Dividend and The Retail Discount alone it is possible to remove debt, which I believe Douglas intended to do anyway but at a slower rate.

I am in total agreement with you that the private banking system needs to be taken out of the equation and replaced with Social Credit banks or a National Public Bank owned by the people via a central bank aligned with the workings of Social Credit. (We used to have one in Australia)

I believe Social Credit is already workable right now, it just never had the ability show its potential that’s all, but there is nothing wrong in trying to improve it if possible. The action of setting up a network of Social Credit banks in the community could be one of them. The action of removing the private banks right to create money as debt could be another.

But first of all we need to rewrite the description of Social Credit so that it can be easily understood. I believe this should be the first priority as we are losing so many potential people through lack of understanding. Then we need to rethink how we can promote it with social media and other venues. When the people understand how Social Credit Works it will be impossible to remove it from them.

JS:  Hi Andrew and Steve,

Me:  The truth is no matter what numbers one puts out or doesn’t put out at all the orthodox and consciously opposed to monetary gifting are going to try to slam it. That’s precisely why you need to make short pungent videos and use obviously self interested numbers to grasp the populace’s attention and keep it. Even advise people to ignore the contrarily self interested protestations of the economic and financial elites. Does everyone need to have a full intellectual understanding of social credit? Of course not. And when they say social credit is socialism just point out that re-distributive taxation is the essence of socialist economic policy and that a sufficient dividend and discount/rebate would enable us to get rid of the great deal of such for both businesses and individuals, and retort that “Freeing both enterprise and the individual from socialist re-distributive taxation….that’s a funny kind of socialism/communism….wouldn’t you say?”  Boldness, the willingness and ability to look at and strategically utilize illogic as a means of exiting the hypnotic effects of orthodoxy and old/current paradigm thinking are in facr signatures of imminent and accomplished paradigm change. We need to go for it!

DM:  I think we ride the coattails of the UBI push and add the thought that our approach provides the mechanism to pay for it without having to incur public debt and kick that can down the road too.

As for the CP, it is a critical component too because it provides the needed money at exactly the point it is needed.  Who can’t get behind the idea that we collect a sales credit instead of paying a sales tax, and that this actually betters – not worsens – our collective weal?  If we convince them of the existence of a gap, then this point won’t be resisted either.

The only comment I will make is that perception is reality – even if it is not the truth.  We can’t argue the simple fact that again and again, the canards keep getting thrown at SC.  If a frontal assault doesn’t work, go guerilla.  That is why I say ride the coattails of Public Banking.  It is like Warburg told his cronies at Jekyll Island, “Don’t worry, we’ll fix the rest of it later.”  It took the bastards half a century to unwind Glass-Seigel but they were patient.  Walk, crawl, run.  That’s what I say.

Me:  I would suggest that Public Banking and Social Credit integrate their efforts, but that we keep in mind that Social Credit is the deeper, more pragmatic program and point of view. Not for any egotistical reason, but simply because Public Banking is only dealing with the major structural problem while Socail Credit or an innovated and even more synergistically powerful version thereof deals with both the more underlying and encompassing aspect of the problem, namely the the current monopolistic paradigm of Debt/Burden/Additional Costs Only. Structural reform is good. Paradigm change is a rare, utterly significant and permanently progressive historical event.

DM:  And there is another factor.  People today are radically different from those half a century ago.  We are all much more stressed and therefore intolerant.  We also no longer trust politicians or our institutions.  The mindset today is much more selfish.  We need to emphasize “what’s in it for me?” because that is what people generally think.  We’re already on the cusp of what Plato told us was the weakness of democracy; that eventually it devolves to us all voting ourselves some free money.  After TARP and bankster bailouts, how could it be otherwise?  I want my bailout too!  That’s what people think so USE IT!

Me:  Wisdom!

JT:  Steve,

Me:  Not correct. You’ve apparently forgotten one thing I got from the social credit group here when I first came acrossed it 8 years ago. And that is that retail sale is the terminal ending point of the entire economic/productive process. So if you implement the 50% discount/rebate policy at that point it will absolutely invert inflation into deflation.  Put that together with the fact that competition IS in effect between and within business models throughout that entire process and so “garden variety” inflation will not and competitively cannot excede a relatively low single digit number, and also understand that hyper-inflations do not and CANNOT occur without certain prior disastrous circumstances like a war which destroys most of the means of production and a central bank that is compliant in leveraging up speculators who short the currency which kicks off the actual hyper-inflation…so a 50% discount AT THE END of the entire process at retail sale….WILL ELIMINATE INFLATION and WILL MATHEMATICALLY INTEGRATE BENEFICIAL PRICE DEFLATION INTO PROFIT MAKING SYSTEMS. Of course you’ll need sin taxation and the threat of expulsion from the discount/rebate program to discourage the greedy, anti-social and unappreciative businessmen who will try to commit creeping inflation or extreme price deflation on the part of monopolistic enterprise, and perhaps tax encouragements for businesses not to inflate their prices except for genuine increased costs….no system is perfect not even one that has experienced a new paradigm, but the reality that the new paradigm creates UNMISTAKABLY IN THE TEMPORAL UNIVERSE…cannot be denied BECAUSE EVERYONE EXPERIENCES IT….like the ability to purchase twice or thrice as much with the same level of income as they did the day before the new paradigm occurred.

JS:  Steve,

Me:  “What Social Crediters are seeking is equilibrium between aggregate incomes and aggregate prices.  There’s absolutely no guarantee that the size of the dividend and price rebate you suggest will bring about that equilibrium. ”

E:  I agree with much here and in the full article., particularly this from the latter:
“The attraction of the language of modern micro to our business and investment class is consequently its ideologically convenient cover for wealth accumulation and protection rather than for its explanatory power. Real business, especially the corporation, represents an impossible challenge to economic theory.”

I would add that perhaps this is understated: “Economics cannot theorize correctly about the firm until it absorbs the reality of the corporate form that dominates business.” It seems to me that now the corporation is the dominant institution in all sectors, including governance. In my view economics orthodoxy is the emperor’s clothes, the “ideologically convenient cover” for the power of capital that is presently expressed in the global corporation.

I see these as issues that command further research if economics is to be taken seriously, all characteristics of the power of corporate capital, which I call the “elephant in the room” in discussions of diverse subjects in current affairs: the corporation is the dominant institution of our time, is inherently irresponsible, is inherently unstable, is dominated by short-term vision, fosters income and wealth inequality, seeks to turn everything into commodities in service to profit, and is undemocratic.

And about “shareholder primacy”, an ideology addressed and criticized in the article, Milton Friedman’s (and others’) advocacy of this ideology completely disregards the long history of the corporation as a government-chartered institution — a creature of the state — which charters often explicitly stated the public responsibilities that went with the charter. As the author discusses:

“[The corporation] is unowned. In this sense it is akin to a nation state, the church, most universities, and, at least here in the US, most towns. It would be odd to describe any of those bodies as being owned by the people who animate them. Yet we routinely talk of firms being owned by stockholders. It is this misattribution of ownership that leads most economists astray in their theorizing.”

Agreed and worth repeating again and again until we can construct a new orthodoxy in the field of economics. Radford’s is an informative article that I recommend to all.

Me:   “[The corporation] is unowned. In this sense it is akin to a nation state, the church, most universities, and, at least here in the US, most towns. It would be odd to describe any of those bodies as being owned by the people who animate them. Yet we routinely talk of firms being owned by stockholders. It is this misattribution of ownership that leads most economists astray in their theorizing.”

Indeed. And the best way to remedy this mis-attribution is to vouchsafe and directly GIVE/GIFT the most potent factor in a monetary economy, i.e. money, “into the many hands of the individual” ….at a point in time in the economic/productive process (retail sale) where it will have maximum problem resolving and beneficial effect.