A fatally flawed economic theory and not the basis upon which the new economic paradigm will rest….that presently is in most instances a superior system to live in if you are a human being.

Steve Hummel 07/27/2018

Me:  Theories, theories, theories. Where are the policies that implement and accomplish the paradigm change???

All you really need to do with theory is discover (for yourself) the concept behind the paradigm itself….and then logically align policies with that concept. There will of course be theoretical and policy changes from the current paradigm…because we’re talking about a paradigm CHANGE after all.

When someone can come up with a set of policies that accomplish more than the following changes BASED on the natural philosophical concept of grace I’ll get on their bandwagon:

transforms systemic and individual monetary austerity into abundance

transforms the system from chronically erosively price inflationary to stably, painlessly and beneficially price deflationary

makes virtually all transfer taxes paid by both businesses and individuals redundant and consequently eliminate-able

even within a fiat money system enables the ability to significantly reduce individual and business income taxes due to the policies being implemented at the very terminal expression point for any and all inflation, namely final retail sale, thus ending “the necessity” for re-distributive taxation to attempt and fail to accomplish the same goal

frees the government and opposing political parties to pursue rational and ethical monetary and national policy goals instead of being captive to obsessive and compulsive political agendas….that are in fact merely the divide and conquer strategies of private finance’s monopolistic monetary paradigm of Debt/Burden/Additional Costs Post Retail Sale

by eliminating economic concern about unemployment with the policies of a universal dividend and discount/rebate policies throughout the entire course of the economic process, enabling separate national re-industrialization in the most cost effective micro-economic and sane ecological way possible

creates an entirely new pattern (paradigm) by implementing direct and reciprocal debit-credit monetary policies that integrate seamlessly into commerce/the economy using the integrative tool of double entry bookkeeping at the point of sale throughout the entire economic process and also its terminal ending point at final retail sale

Top all of this….and I’m all in on YOUR new paradigm.

YS:  If you can device a good policy or policies, there is no need of theory. However, a set of policies without good understanding of economy may turn out to be disastrous. A typical example is the socialist economic planning. It hardly worked but was not as rosy as its proponents first imagined.

Me:  Correct Yosh. Of course when the policies and their effects that I enumerated fit seamlesssly with the nature of double entry bookkeeping which is the very infrastructure upon which all commerce and all economic transactions take place, and they also resolve the two biggest problems heterodox economists identify as chronically plaguing modern economies, that is

1) systemic monetary austerity and individual income scarcity and
2) price inflation

its hard not to consider it economically valid, the answer to widely accepted chronic systemic problems and thus by definition the policies of a paradigm change.

Systemic austerity and individual and commercial monetary scarcity can be alleviated by a single policy of both a high percentage (say 40-50%) discount to prices for consumers and a rebating of that discount back to the commercial agent giving the discount….at the points of sale from one business model to the next and at final retail sale. That single gracious and abundance creating policy would do more to stabilize modern economies than all of the calculus and theoretical figure-figure that has been continually mulled over for over a decade since the SHTF in 2008.

Me:  Policies are the true test of any theory and especially for a new paradigm. What are each of your policies?

AZ:  To build an economic system based on cooperation and generosity, instead of competition and greed.

Me:  Conceptually that is an excellent pair of aspects for policies of a new paradigm. Now consider that wisdom being the integration of opposites as in (thesis x antithesis) that the integration of a duality is also the very model for a cooperative activity and that generosity is a combination of kindness and plenty they are actually also fruits of love and its active form/expression in the temporal universe, grace, aspects of which also just happen to be mutual friendly agreement/cooperation and abundance/plenty. And yes, these are precisely the kind of thinking that policies should align with and follow from.

I think that the Sufi concept of God as the friend also fits seamlessly within the intentions and actions of cooperation and generosity.

DM:  I would advocate an economic system based on collaboration and enlightened self-interest, which may amount to the same thing. But my meta-policy is to engage in the widest critical discourse, which in my view would ideally be underpinned by some logic such as I have indicated. At the least, beliefs, theories and policies that are not logically credible ought not to be credited.

Me:  That is a very good seemingly oppositional duality that the wisdom of thorough integration can create a thirdness greater oneness out of….by mentally applying the various aspects of the natural philosophical concept of grace, which is not only the pinnacle concept of all wisdom, but also one of its effects, both personally and systemically is unity…of opposites.

AZ: @DM,  I think you are placing too much weight on logic. When I make deductions about how you feel, I use my intutions, not logic. Whenever we deal with deductions about unobservables, — like gravity from falling apples — it requires insight, which goes beyond logic. This is our daily life, where we make a thousand inferences on basis of our personal experiences, none of which can be rigorously axiomatically proven using logical methods. This is just the Cartesian mistake, to distrust the feeling that I am alive, and to try to construct a LOGICAL argument for my own existence — this brain-in-a-vat is very damaging.
The Russell program came to a dead-end when Godel proved uncertainty and incompleteness of logical systems. Logic cannot get you to MOST of the truths which exist, and many propositions are undecidable using rigorous logic — you can choose their or their negation, and the only guide is INTUITION.

Me:  Yes, There is science and logic…and then there is beingness. Science and logic are wonderful, interesting and important for a thorough understanding of the temporal universe, but they’re not a complete understanding of Life and all of the cosmos. Just how inadequate it is can be understood by realizing that questions/questioning, which is the tool and method of science, is only satisfying until the questions continue. In other words the only thing less satisfying than having problems….is not having any problems….and/or becoming unsatisfied by the non-completeness of the mental mode of doubt/questioning only/itself. And that is the beginning of an entirely new adventure.

When there are no more questions to answer or dissatisfaction with only questioning a kind of agony can take root that can only be overcome by more questions….or by contemplating beingness itself and learning to enjoy all of the experiences you’ve had all of your life in a deeper, more complete and satisfying way. It’s the difference between the monk who before he attained enlightenment saw rivers and trees and mountains, and the enlightened monk who still saw rivers and trees and mountains but saw them wisely.

A Koan For The Scientific Age and Its Maladies

What Is The Detail of Space?

JV:  I think a fundamental question that needs to be answered first, is whether we are placed at birth within an economy; and thus where feelings, intuitions and the like Asad is talking about are determinate as soon as the as such inspired activities take place, or whether the latter become determinant only as a reaction to previous activities, still being indeterminate in value until such a reaction to them happens within a bounded and purposeful human-made system. Until an acknowledgement one way or the other, it seems to me that these philosophical discussions are like vapouring in empty space.

Me:  Yes, that is in fact a description of being at the point of requirement for paradigm perception which modern economics has been at for some time and the money system has actually been at for at least 5000 years. And everyone has the their own tipping point where the alleged questions all seem to be asked and/or become obsessive, terminally orthodox and so limited/incomplete for them.

D:  Dear Asad,

I’ve been part of schools which have as their primary focus (at least in the initiating stages), purely objective self-observation – objective in the sense that as one observes an emotional reaction, a thought process, a physical movement etc, they must become detached and observe purely as a third party or a scientist might, i.e. without any judgment, criticism, or other emotional reaction (meaning, if one observes something about themselves, such as a childish emotional response, and then becomes emotional about it, they aren’t detached and observing as if they were a third party).

One of the most difficult aspects of this activity (and hence why schools exist as a means to develop the skill), is because the human being does not like being observed. The more one tries to observe oneself, the more the emotional aspect of the human tries to trip up the observing side, mostly, by encouraging one to see what they see from an emotional aspect.

To illustrate, as I began to seriously observe my many emotional responses to people and circumstances around me, it became apparent to me that vanity was at the core, i.e. due to an inherent fear of many things like a fear others wont like me, or a fear that I won’t live up to other’s expectations, I am automatically drawn into an attempt to criticize myself. Put another way, as I observe the vanity in me, my own vanity comes up behind me and says ‘we must change this so we don’t appear vain’.

The reason I am sharing this is for two reasons.

The first, is a personal reason. It is by the long and hard work of observing myself in many situations over quite some time that I was able to see that I am not a homoeconomicus, that I am not an economic agent at heart, and that there is nothing resembling an economic activity which appeals to me. All that I am good at, and am most skilled at I am unable to do for money or under any legal contract without it becoming an emotional prison. And that what I crave more than anything else is to operate under different relations to the one’s that an economy forces us to operate under; i.e. what I crave is trusts with people, not contracts. Trusts which operate under different arrangements, such as the time-honoured profit share arrangement, as opposed to the pre-determined profit rate contractual agreements. What I ultimately crave is the trust that if my crop fails (using an example), the guy next door, or around the corner, whose crop succeeds, will help me out, and vice versa.

The second, which is more for the purpose of this blog, is that when one is able to observe themselves long enough they start to realize (and they must reach this point if they are to be able to observe objectively) that there is nothing they can do on their own to change what is an inherent feature of the human machine, i.e. fear which translates into vanity. However, the more one is able to observe objectively, the more one is able to make their vanity/fear subordinate to their aims in life and actually use these human elements as tools to work in their favour, as opposed to being ruled by them.

Now, the importance of this observation is as follows:

Economics, particularly political economics, is the field which overlooks all the contracting people, which is basically most of us today (as the west increases the size of its footprint). In other words, it sees us as children needing rules and guidance as we spend most of our lives competing against one another.

Now, and here is the most important part. Economics, and in particular, political economics, is like the vanity which doesn’t like being exposed, and will do anything and everything in its power to trip up the observer. We don’t want to be exposed for what we really are, and nor do those who benefit from us.

Many economists (and I confess, I am finding it difficult to openly admit this) are not deliberately making a mess of economics; the mess is coming from an inability to objectively see what are the true causes of why we must engage in economic activities under contractual laws to begin with. Further, even if many were to be able to see it, there is no way it could be changed on a grand scale because everyone must advance to a higher level of operation on their own accord. No one can teach trust, trust must be earned, but it is easy to teach contract and it is easy to operate under contracts, especially when all the rules have been laid out already for us.

However, by the same token, trust cannot be taught unless one is also practicing it, and for these purposes, I mean, to operate under trust outside of the monetary economy. Some of us need to get together and develop these types of models in order to operate under them and then we can begin the task of organically teaching it to others. This we can do without any political economists in the world even knowing we are doing it until it becomes too late for them to do anything to stop us.

AZ:  Brilliant. I am in 100% agreement with everything you say. It means that change wont come from the top, it must come from the bottom However to add a pessimistic note, we need to build communities and re-create social training within families (the famous family values were to teach cooperation, to observe, critique, and correct behavior of children acting in anti-social ways). With the breakdown of family structure in the West, it would be difficult to carry out this program. In the East, the spread of the internet has led to the spread of the powerful and attractive message of hedonism and individualism, which prohibit development of community, and make individual growth and spiritual progress impossible. There are many other elements of modernity which are spreading rapidly and which are extremely disruptive and inhibit building of community and long term social relations. The power which comes from acting together for a common goal is not available — something which favors a very small group of the 1%. There are several groups big and small making efforts along the lines you mention with varying degrees of success. The hope for mankind rests on their shoulders, but the light seems very dim.
From the excerpts that I read (I have not gotten through the book) Radical Transformation
Oligarchy, Collapse, and the Crisis of Civilization By Kevin MacKay — seems very insightful.
BTW where did you get training in self-observation? I thought this was practiced mainly by Buddhists and Hindus, and such schools do not exist in the West, and are very difficult to find in the East?

Me:  Yes I agree as well. It is true that modern man is not contemplative, however, transforming the economy of austerity and scarcity, upon which the better part of everyone’s waking hours and effort is focused and habituated to, into one that enabled everyone to experience leisure (which is not idleness, but self directed focused activity) would be the kind of increased basic infrastructure upon which a culture of contemplation could take root, especially if we also logically followed up on it with a cooperative effort by the clergy, the helping professions and the government with public service announcements about leisure and personal purpose that would help to acculturate everyone to such purposes as well as the efficacy of contemplative disciplines themselves.

What Is The Detail of Space?

Science and logic are wonderful, interesting and important for a thorough understanding of the temporal universe, but they’re not a complete understanding of Life and all of the cosmos. Just how inadequate it is can be understood by realizing that questions/questioning, which is the tool and method of science, is only satisfying until the questions continue. In other words the only thing less satisfying than having problems….is not having any problems….and/or becoming unsatisfied by the non-completeness of the mental mode of doubt/questioning only/itself. And that is the beginning of an entirely new adventure.

When there are no more questions to answer or disatisfaction with only questioning a kind of agony can take root that can only be overcome by more questions….or by contemplating beingness itself and learning to enjoy all of the experiences you’ve had all of your life in a deeper, more complete and satisfying way. It’s the difference between the monk who before he attained enlightenment saw rivers and trees and mountains, and the enlightened monk who still saw rivers and trees and mountains but saw them wisely.

These are the three levels of deceptiveness and delusion associated with paradigms and monitor how much of the theorist’s mind is still captured by an old paradigm.

Falsehoods aren’t that difficult to discover if one is a good observer of facts and can intelligently compare them to what has or is occurring.

Deciphering and refuting distinctions without a difference is a little more tricky because its an apparent answer that either contains particles of truth and/or is stated in a way that appears to answer a critque but actually doesn’t. This is a favorite of people whose minds are thoroughly captured by a current paradigm and are either trying to spin that paradigm or worse yet actually believe what they are saying. This is rampant in all politics, but most especially with the Trumpists at this time as their cry of “fake news” has almost completely muddied the distinction between truth and falsehood….and worse….their minds are so opague (letting neither light in nor out) that they have a sincerely passionate attachment to that delusion.  Certain schools of economics have this same problem.

Unconsciousness/Hypnotism is the normal state of almost everyone regarding paradigms of all sorts and varieties because almost no one even has a scrap of knowledge about the word and concept let alone some actually useful data and understanding of them. This level of delusion is the most difficult to overcome/see through because one must attain an entirely new level of consciousness to see that one is afflicted with it regarding the new paradigm. You see this alot in economics of course especially surrounding various orthodoxies on both the left and right perspectives regarding money, inflation, banking-finance, debt and money creation. Only when one steps entirely outside of the current paradigm are they able to truly defeat paradigmatic Unconsciousness/Hypnotism, and even then seeing the new paradigm entails a lucky set of circumstances like an outsider’s perspective, knowledge of a forgotten and/or falsely invalidated perspective that holds essential data for the recognition of the concept of the paradigm, discovery of a new tool that enlightens solutions to one or more of the problematic aspects of the current paradigm and finally having a set of ethics, intellectual curiosities and perseverance with them despite invalidation, ridicule, apathy and ignoring of them by pundits and “authorities”.

“This always begins with a specific interpretation of the world around us which, until shown differently is reality.”

Of course. And this is my interpretation:

1) Scarcity ratio and its resolution with the new paradigm of grace as in gifting

2) UBI reflective of grace, economists are just beginning to cognite on it

3) integrative tool of double entry bookkeeping, economists are ignorant of in general, its nature and the significances of the summing, ending, totaling and terminal expression points of costs/prices and all consumer inflation

4) Flawed static/full stop General equilibrium, grace as general interactive, integrative process and flow, higher abundant monetary disequilibrium is descriptive of temporal reality and accomplishes its nature of process and flow/free flowingness

5) Grace as highest concept of wisdom is every thing and the Other, and/or its opposite to the point of thirdness/greater oneness, (integrated duality within an integrative trinity-unity-oneness process) including the NATURAL EXISTENT REALITY NO MATTER TO WHOM OR WHAT IT IS ATTRIBUTED TO of grace as in consciousness itself

6) grace and scientific method are trinitarian processes, one of fragmented empirical/physical data only (true, untrue & hypothesis) the other of (empirical/physical data & wisdom) & grace as in consciousness itself

7) and science is in the process of awakening to this deeper, broader, epistemologicaly higher, more complete, more integrative and holistic reality for over a hundred years….all of which are adjectives describing/aspects of the natural philosophical concept of grace…..which indeed is the trulycutting edge scientific description of nature….that economics and every system including the totality of human reality….should emulate, mentally understand and self actualize.

So lets get on with it.

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

Posted To RWER Blog 07/20/2018

Again, for the 4th or 5th time, a paradigm is a new consciousness of a singular concept that also fits seamlessly within most of the objective structures of the body of knowledge it applies to and yet transforms and creates an entirely new pattern. Hence it is both a mental and an objective/temporal universe thing. Paradigms are the ultimate human historically integrative realizations AND events. They are supreme moments of wisdom both because integration is the very process of wisdom itself and because the result of such thorough integrations results in wisdom and wisdom’s highest natural philosophical systemic concept and/or personal experience…AKA grace/atonement/samadhi/ satori-kensho. Realizing a new paradigm is just such an ah ha experience and is what all scientists describe as such in the infrequent breakthroughs they all hope to have.

It is time for economists to awaken to the new monetary and economic paradigm of grace as in Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting and its aligned policies….and also for mankind to realize that an aspect or aspects of the natural philosophical concept of grace has always been the concept behind EVERY paradigm change.…..largely due to the fact that grace as in the continual dynamic interactive and integrative process and flow of everything, i.e. the cosmos is the truest and actual reality.

Economic theories are nothing compared to economic policies and their actual effects. Desired economic effects depend upon their being implemented in the temporal universe at significant and relevant places and times within the economic process that also have direct, immediate and the desired effects.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with theorizing, but if you desire individual and systemic abundance instead of austerity, a definitive way of ending inflation instead of enduring it or claiming some conservative orthodoxy that it can’t be dealt with or liberal orthodoxy that it won’t occur…..then YOU’RE JUST NOT LOOKING at the integrative infrastructure of all commerce, i.e. double entry bookkeeping and the significant places and times where policies can be implemented that all heterodox economists here would agree….IS WHAT THEY’D LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN IN THE ECONOMY……ON A CONTINUING BASIS.

Is it okay here to have a discussion about the nature of accounting, economic policies that are possible from that nature and an economic analysis of the direct temporal universe effects of those policies implemented at specific points???

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

The main reason why ALL present econometric models are wrong is they’re not looking directly at the economy, economists are largely ignorant of the identical natures of double entry bookkeeping and the pricing and money systems and hence they do not realize that policies that will resolve the major problematic situations in modern economies are possible by coming out of their habitual and near abstract fugues and LOOKING at the above tools and their significances to the economy.

On an epistemological scale looking is right below the highest level of knowledge possible, that is, knowing.