Macro-economics and The New Monetary Mega Paradigm Change

Macro-economics, which is only about 80 years old and hence has a very short cultural horizon, is largely an abstraction laden discipline that has served more as a distraction from the direct observation of the economic process and is a complete non-confront of its most potent and relevant aspect, namely the money system and its monopoly paradigm of Debt Only.  This monetary paradigm has not changed for the entire course of human civilization and has integrated itself so thoroughly into the economy that it has become like breathing, an essential every moment reality which is almost utterly unconscious. When people cognite on the new paradigm of monetary gifting the change will so dramatic and so beneficially integrative in associated and not normally associated areas that the old paradigm oppressed that it will be considered a mega paradigm change which personally, immediately and continuously benefits the individual.

Posted To RWER Blog

PD:  Attached is an article of mine explaining what is wrong with MMT. Paul Davidson Founding Editor, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics author: WHO’S AFRAID OF JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES? CHALLENGING ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE IN AN AGE OF GROWING INEQUALITY [2017]; and THE KEYNES SOLUTION: THE PATH TO GLOBAL ECONOMIC PROSPERITY [2009] phone:(561) 676-1633 Holly Chair of Excellence in Political Economy Emeritus, University of Tennessee

Me:  Keynesianism was a reform and finance’s fall back position to the burgeoning world wide movement of Social Credit before WW II ….which itself was merely a reform albeit a much more focused and effective one than Keynesianism.

Douglas was a very clear minded individual but he was born before Kuhn’s study of paradigm changes was written and analyzed, and before classical economic ideas regarding equilibrium were recently de-bunked.

Dominant and rapacious finance capitalism and well intention-ed but reactionary and monetarily ignorant socialism are alike passe’, and the particles of truth within them must be thoroughly integrated into the third-ness greater oneness of the new paradigm of Abundantly Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting and its various policies, regulations and structural changes.

MMT, which as far as it goes I am happy to philosophically align with, is just a tweaking of Keynesianiam. It’s about additional money in the system. Good. The problem with it is it’s both indirect in its effect on the individual, and again, merely tweaks the nature of the current monetary paradigm of Debt Only. It’s Keynesianism +. That’s all.

Directness is an aspect of every historical paradigm change. For instance going from an ephemeral nomadic relationship with the land to a direct and more abundant one via agriculture, from a false abstract spiritual concept of earthly significance to a direct experiential observation of its position in space, from absolution only via the structural monopoly sacraments of the church to having a direct and personal relationship with god.

Heed the signatures of historical paradigm changes and the underlying concept from which those signatures come and you can stop being a blind man describing an elephant, an erudite but paradigmatic dunce.

“It’s the monetary paradigm, stupid.” that we need to focus on….not just another tweak that parades itself as a paradigm change but will not stop the 5000 year old pattern of economic, social, political and civilizational collapse.

Challenge To The Posters on RWER Blog

Does a 50% discount to consumers on every consumer item from a package of chewing gum to autos to a house…every cent of which is rebated back to the retail enterprise giving the discount by the monetary authority…not immediately double the earned income/purchasing power of everyone, double the free and clear money actually available for every enterprise’s goods and services and beneficially integrate price and asset deflation into profit making economic systems?

Please, anyone here….yes or no? Don’t be afraid. Let’s have your answers.

Posted To RWER Blog

Until economists and economic pundits start thinking and perceiving on the level of the paradigm/pattern they will rely upon the lesser level of analysis and insight of econometrics.

Personal Quote

It’s foolish not to be inspired by beautiful ideas and the experiences behind them.

Steve Hummel 10/29/2019

Personal Quote

The unwillingness and/or inability to experience the present moment could be the deepest problem of humanity.         Steve Hummel 10/27/2019

Reply Regarding Epistomolgy and Consciousness on RWER Blog

IK:   I am of a philosophical mindset but not religious in the conventional sense. I am a priority monist. In my view, the whole (the cosmos) comes before the parts. Novel parts emerge and evolve while remaining linked in one cosmos system. Ontologically, this means I make no distinction between material and immaterial as Cartesian dualists and most Christians do. There are only, strictly speaking, “existents” interacting interacting via complex system processes and seemingly bound by emergent and usually strong laws, so far as we can tell. Epistemologically, I go no further than empirical observation will take me, except to develop what I call a near-empirical metaphysics. This means I reject dogmatic religion. I’m an agnostic existentialist and scientific humanist but I also reject doctrinaire scientific positivism. My position and ethics would be closest to those of a non-theistic strand of Buddhism.

I reject the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Reasons and assignments of causes are inventions of human logic and inference, though these do sometimes allow us to usefully model real processes and facilitate predictions and manipulations. But we should never make the mistake of Platonic essentialism and assume that a useful model or deduced law of reality actually contains any essence of reality itself.

I even reject the Law of non-contradiction outside of classical logic itself. In other words, I am of the view that existence as such can contain contradictions. The clearest one (following discoveries in physics) is that it appears that existence can arise out of non-existence and collapse back into it. These intimations don’t surprise Buddhist philosophy at all, which has long held such a position.

Me:  That’s an excellent point of view. It is however stuck in unknowingness which IS very high on a scale of consciousness in fact the only state higher than it….is knowingness.

The willingness and ability to integrate both knowingness and unknowingness is what enables us to be/become fully conscious instead of only partially so. It also enables us to have a real, personal experience of time as both a moment and as a flow of moments because if you remain in a radical state of unknowingness or only allow yourself to know at lower epistemological levels like data or abstraction…..you arbitrarily limit yourself to an abstract knowledge OF time. The personal experience of present time and each flowing moment of it is one of the goals of virtually every strand of buddhist thought.

To me the integration of our partial consciousness/knowingness with and via direct and thus somewhat heightened awareness of the electro-magnetic flux that is continually around us in present time….is what is known as higher/full consciousness…itself. It’s all natural….and glorious

IK:  Craig,

You seem to me to be propounding a form of gnosticism: a state where humans can have perfect or true knowledge and know with certainty that they are right. That’s not a position I could develop out of my philosophy. It’s not consistent with issues of transmission of information and loss of information in complex system information theory. Nor is it consistent with issues of modelling (the brain models the world) where the model is always perforce less complex than reality. Plus there are the further issues of errors in modelling.

But each to his own in metaphysics. 🙂

Me:  Integrative natural gnosticism perhaps. I’ll take the observations and experiences described in the world’s wisdom traditions (and my own naturalistic experiences as well) over the limited mereness of the current-modern paradigm for inquiry of Science Only.