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.

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