Me:  Too many misconceptions, orthodox blindness and wrong headedness for me to address all of them here. UBI must be paired with an additional policy of a high percentage discount/rebate policy strategically implemented at the point of sale throughout the entire economic process and also at final retail sale which just happens to also be the terminal expression point for any and all forms of inflation….thus eliminating any possibility of inflation and actually implementing what Austrians say they want to see, namely price deflation painlessly and beneficially integrated into profit making systems. Not looking at the temporal universe effects of this additional policy….doesn’t change the truth about it.

MS:  Good Grief – Austrians do not seek price deflation. They seek a free market in currency without government interference. You propose intervention madness. By the way, inflation is not really about prices. So you are off the deep end in many ways.

Me:  It doesn’t matter your opinion about inflation is….only that its terminal expression point is final retail sale. And you and Austrians are always barking about how deflation would be good because it would get rid of malinvestment. I’ve seen that expressed so many times here I can’t count them.

The answer to any and all inflation is the second policy of a 50% discount/rebate at the point of sale and final retail sale. The point of sale is the self determined totaling of all costs for any item or service plus profit margin. Hence if you implement the above policy at that point and require that the consuming business “pass on” that discount to their customer in order to receive their rebate of it back by the monetary authority…you’ve linearized a 50% discount to prices throughout the entire length of the economic/productive process and also doubled the $1000/mo UBI…as well as everyone’s purchasing power that they’ve earned from work for pay. When was the last time any economist or pol has doubled everyone’s income and consequently the total free and available demand for every business’s product and service??? If everyone 18 and older has $24k/yr and $64k if they have a part time job making $20k/yr…what is the reason to have transfer taxes paid by both businesses and individuals??? Or for social secuity for that matter after some form of phase out. As for all of the concern about everyone becoming lazy, if this were going to be true except perhaps for a smallish percentage, the wealthy would have killed themselves long ago. It’s just an unconscious fear that is irrelevant because the set of positive and constructive purposes is larger than the set of purpose through employment only, and if we grew two neurons and had a cooperative effort by the clergy, helping professions and the government to acculturate and guide the populace toward leisure, which is not idleness, but rather self chosen focused and attentive activities…we’d have a much happier, healthier and creative society than we have now…and much more prosperous too.

CO:  Robbing Peter to pay Paul, no matter how it is framed, will not ever lead to a more prosperous society. The number of votes the scheme buys before all Peter’s in the world close shop is another matter.

Me:  The policies I advocate are not socialist/re-distributive but rather directly distributive but implemented at the point of retail sale in a digital manner (equal amounts of debits and credits sum to zero thus a 50% discount followed by a 50% rebate back to the discounter enables the business to be whole on his overhead payments and profit margins and the consumer’s purchasing power is doubled. And taxes can actually be lowered instead of increased.

CO:  I fail to see how the “monetary authority” injecting 50% new money into the economy with retailers on each transaction at the point of sale solves any problems. If anything, that sounds like a good way to make all prices double overnight, and then again the next night, and then again the next night after that…

Me:  Simple, if you get a 50% discount from your vendors and do not pass it along…you don’t get any rebate….while just one of your competitors does pass it along….and your customers don’t buy from you anymore because they can get what they need from someone whose not an anti-social idiot like you. The rules for such a policy would have incentives to honestly participate….and punishments for stiffing your customers even though your vendors gave you a 50% discount on your costs from them. And even if there was 2-3% inflation because of cheating…you just tweak the discount percentage at retail to insure a 50% or more reduction in price and hence a doubling of every individual’s purchasing power.

DN:  The industry rationalizing the last 100 years of monetary idiocy (where banks could create from thin air an “asset” on which they charged rent) can just as easily rationalize something as foolish as the UBI.

…of faith deter looking and perceiving in otherwise exceedingly intelligent people all the time. It’s the direct result of the paradigm of Science Only as the only legitimate means of  inquiry. What, do I advocate your worst sunday school nightmare 24/7/365? Of course not. I’m simply saying that the good of science that brought into question the supernaturalist viewpoint of the Church…has in numerous ways ossified into a religious dogma itself, and needs to revisit natural philosophy, the spirit of human psychology and the genuine personal insights of the world’s major Wisdom traditions.

Blind and literalistic faith and the human experience of faith as in confidence enough to hope and look…are two entirely different definitions of the word.

….learning to simply “stand in its light”.

Steve Hummel

C:  Of course science – which just means “knowledge” – is about truth. Earlier you have wrongly said that modern/ Western culture is peculiarly obsessed with truth. I would say that as much as I agree with much of what you say, appreciate the tendencies of thought, the social construction of knowledge jazz etc, the problem is that you basically exchange the common meanings of “truth” and “fact”. Interchange those two words and you usually make better sense. The correct, and I think commoner, observation, is that modern Western culture is singularly obsessed with “fact”. For every human culture always and everywhere is obsessed with “truth”.

Saying that there is no such thing as truth, absolute truth (” ‘absolute’ truth? – as if there were any other kind!” (Hegel somwhere)) or that man cannot know the truth – well, as Hegel said in a place I do remember (Philosophy of Mind) – people who say such things cannot be understanding what they are saying. I repeat myself, but I think it is necessary, Hegel and many others felt this need to repeat when unintelligible odes to unintelligibility had not become as utterly de rigeur as today.

KZ:  Calgacus, “The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.” (Albert Camus) Is this truth, your truth, any one’s truth? Is it Camus’ truth, or is he just using it to rev up the in crowd? Truth is like everything else in the life of human culture. It’s made up by the humans involved. Made up for use. That’s the beginning and end of truth. As for Hegel, I tend not to pay much attention to old white guys delivering truth. And repeating nonsense doesn’t make the nonsense sensible. If you want to understand what people do and say, watch the people involved, not so called clever philosophers. As to what science is. It’s one form of knowledge. Not the only one. Perhaps not even the most useful one.

 Me:  There is particle of truth in everything. Differentiating, evaluating and integrating them all until one is fully conscious of them is the object and the point in economics and in Life.

JB:  Hi, Craig, when we give a lecture in economics, engineering or any science, we are not a Albert Camus. We are normally using what passes for clearly defined variables & seek numeric ways of linking them. That is what we are paid to do as best I know.
That said, of course Camus was a very senious & clever person, but doesn’t he normally still appear in lit or culture courses these days? Am I out of date?

Me:  James,  Camus wrote aesthetically and effectively about the mind at the end of its orthodox scientific mindset tether and so was simply expressing the flip, absurd and yet still un-integrated side of that perspective. What is required is the complete integration of science and wisdom/self actualization which enables one to see both fragmented/scientific and the deeper, broader and more consciously complete truth….in its total perspective.

And science should be applied (especially after looking where I correctly have observed that economists are NOT looking) and wisdom/natural philosophy/spirituality must needs be the guide for policies derived from that scientific examination…because the cosmos is a mostly unperceived integrative whole and the integration of philosophy/thought and policy/action makes for logic in the temporal universe.

KZ:  Craig, William James agrees with a lot what you say. But take note that he reaches these points by looking for the basis of why life is worth living. That basis for him is based on “believing” that life is worth living. Belief, the judgement of humans is what makes life worth living or not. We may argue about the details and operations of these beliefs, but ultimately, it’s the beliefs that give meaning and significance to human life. I believe we agree. We arrive at the same place but by different pathways. Also, reaching this end demands we change the meaning and pursuit of since. Science is still empirical. Data is its basis. But now data is something much more than that envisioned by sciences that began 500 years ago in the West. We’re IMO moving toward a unification of the western versions of science with those of China, Islam, and India. Scientists see this certainly. But right now, it’s not much discussed, as scientists everywhere try to save science in general from the populist mob.

KZ: But which particles are truth, and which are not. And how do we figure that out? If everything is in some sense or part true, then why do we even need the notion of truth?

Me:  That’s for scientists to discover and define…along with the even more comprehensive and superior mental discipline of wisdom.

JB: “Can you tell the rest of us what economics departments would make such a course as requirement. —I have students who might be interested.”

Me:  Sure, The Essence of World Wisdom Traditions and The Signatures of Paradigm Change 501

KZ:  Craig, I agree, science should be applied. Otherwise it’s not science. The cosmos may be fused through some connections we don’t see, and perhaps will never see. We can work to see them, but we don’t control them. It thus escapes me how these “spiritual” universal connections can in any way guide us. Plus, the entire history of Sapiens is creating partitions or wrinkles we call culture. All incomplete and uncertain.

Me:  Grace, satori-kensho, atonement, samadhi are all the same experience and concept. And those/that concept is also the deepest, broadest, most universally applicable (because it is the most basic aspect of human life, i.e. consciousness itself) and you can’t divide consciousness up into parts, although there are differing levels of it.

So just contemplate it in all of its aspects. By all means call it the scientific study of grace….but remember to make sure you focus on its experience not its abstract once or tenth removed significance.

And so far as economics is concerned focus on its aspects of abundance, directness, reciprocality (back and forthness, interactivity, integrativeness, process)

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

Me: They’re right of course to resist the populist mob and their dis-integrative leaders like Trump and Bannon, or gross religionists who would deny the validities of science.

But unfortunately, because they’ve not integrated the truths in opposites (and also not deleted their separate and/or mutual untruths) they miss the mark of Wisdom and its pinnacle concept grace as in gifting, abundance, directness, inversion, transformation, immediacy, universal benevolence, the essence of tolerance, continual integration/integrating, the moral fortitude to act when wrong is actually taking place even if it is an uncomfortable or unpopular decision, discernment of the deeper truth and of when best it is correct to act or not to act, etc. etc. …..

Orthodoxy is the curse word of truth because it’s a stop in a universe of process, and via is the curse word of consciousness, which if continually integrated, enables one to experience the cosmos as it actually is, a graceful, adventuresome flow of beauty that’s always there…just waiting for one “to stand in its light”.

AZ:  I have not yet had the time to read Lawson, highly recommended by many whose judgments I trust. I just started on his Essays on the Nature and State of Modern Economics, and find it very much in conformity with my views. The following paragraph provides an apt summary of exactly the same methodological point I am trying to make. Criticizing someone else and then proposing an alternative model is NOT the way to make progress: Quote from Lawson:

Most of these individuals unhesitatingly presume that the recourse of
criticising substantive claims (typically modelling assumptions) of others
and thereafter substituting (equally questionable) alternatives of their
own is always sufficient and proper procedure (the sort of error that I am
here seeking to dispel). To the extent that a few of the individuals in
question do reveal some awareness of somewhat philosophically oriented
critiques, the resort typically is to avoid the effort of engaging by instead
displaying overtly dismissive postures, suggesting for example that their
formulators know no economics, have hidden agendas, cannot do the
mathematics, are ‘economic flat-earthers’, merely hide behind terms
ending in ‘ism’ and ‘ology’, and so forth. The inevitable consequence is
that discussions of the state of the modern discipline remain largely
superficial, criticism is mostly misdirected and overly tame, and supposed/
proposed alternative approaches or projects (some of which receive
significant financial backing) end up, in the main, being essentially more
of the same.

Me:  Asad,  Correct. And then we have my approach which is complimentary toward the heterodox and only wanting true and actual integration of the best aspects of their separate theories. That plus pointing out where economists are not looking and how looking there will enable them to see ways of implementing all of the things the heterodox say is needed in modern economies like additional individual income, more, and more rational government spending, policy means of integrating large normally opposing political constituencies because the policies greatly benefit both sides of such artificially maintained “differences”, ending the rule of private finance and making it take its proper, smaller and non-dominating place ALONGSIDE every other business model, which anyone with a particle of objectivity must acknowledge is both the current structural and paradigmatic dominant force.

And all it would entail is a little closer look at the economic significance of the point of sale, recognizing the digital nature of both the pricing system and the integrative tool (double entry bookkeeping) that guides, records and would enable policy to be seamlessly integrated into the economy.

KZ:  Craig, not all populists are bad for science or society. The populist Progressive Movement of the late 19th and early 20th century US stopped the Gilded Age, saving democracy and honest and effective government for the nation. In other words, not all mobs are composed of defective humans. All the things you list, wisdom, tolerance, transformation, etc. are created and used by humans. Used for good ends and bad ends. The differences are not in the universe, or in the concepts. The differences are in the humans who use them.

Me:  “not all populists are bad for science or society.” Correct.

“The differences are in the humans who use them.” Correct again. Everything depends upon their awareness of and degree of integration of the concept of grace.

AZ:  I agree completely — scientific theories are created to explain empirical phenomena and rejected or revised in face of conflicts with empirical phenomena. This VERY SIMPLY and ALMOST OBVIOUS methodology is NOT the dominant methodology — in fact, the dominant methodology conflicts strongly with this idea. This was noted by Keynes, who said that economists do not seem to care if the data conflicts with there theories. Similarly, Romer was outraged by economic theorists complete indifference to conflicts between their theories and reality. How did such a BIZARRE methodology come to dominate the profession? We need to learn this history to understand how the train went off the tracks, and how we can try to put it back on track. In this connection, my earlier post on Economists Confuse Greek (axiomatic, pre-scientific) Methodology with Science, provides some clues as to what happened. I have also studied this question elsewhere, particularly in Economics for the 21st Century, where I show that there were THREE different DEEP methodologlcal mistakes in the course of intellectual progress (/regress) which led to the current methodology. We need to correct all THREE to have a chance at a viable methodology for the current century/millenium.

Me:  Here’s three methodological flaws off the top of my head:

1) choosing abstraction over direct looking at/examining data, temporal universe structures and problematic relationships

2) making abstraction an orthodoxy and hence further restricting full examination

3) Not having a good study of paradigms and their signatures, hence not being able to clearly see or understand both the current and the new paradigm, hence having an excess of abstraction, theory and confusion and a dearth of actually workable and effective policies….as a new paradigm is always a single concept that fits seamlessly within the body of knowledge it is applied to while resolving its major problems and transforming the entire pattern.

KZ:  Craig, scientists of human communities only study what other humans have created. Whether that be families, politics, wars, or economics. These social scientists stop being scientists when they begin to substitute themselves in that work. When they chose how communities do economics, families, politics, wars, etc. Grace, atonement, etc. are part of the creative work of human communities. No more, no less. These may be loved, hated, ignored, or made the basis of a civilization. Every aspect of which social scientists have committed themselves to describing in as much detail as possible. This is the only duty of social scientists.

Me:  I’ve never said anything but exactly that….and that they haven’t entirely cognited on and integrated the full understanding of the natural philosophical and personal concept of grace etc. …..yet.

KZ:  My apology, Craig. All these actions, beliefs, feelings are grounded in human culture. They are not ethereal. I believed that was your position. Sorry for my misunderstanding.

Me:  No problem. Actually all of those things are both ethereal and extremely deeply mentally rooted. It’s a supreme paradox that a human mind is both the easiest and the most difficult thing to change in the entire cosmos. And that’s another reason why studying the world’s wisdom traditions is important because they were the scientists of consciousness and how to best self actualize it before science became the dominant form of inquiry and “observation”. And very good scientists of consciousness and its various levels of awareness they were.

Keen is probably the best economist on the planet. However, he and Minsky have mistaken a trend toward ponzi finance and a tipping point for the moment to moment reality of total costs and so prices exceeding total INDIVIDUAL incomes NOT TOTAL MONEY/CREDIT. The latter reality therefore compels and impels continual borrowing (also made necessary by the present paradigm of Debt/Burden/Additional Cost Only) in the failed attempt to keep the economy from dropping into recession.

They’re quite correct that instability/disequilibrium characterizes the system because the equation above (total costs/prices continually exceed total individual incomes) is a disequilibrium state. This being both inherent and financially compelled in modern economies, merely trying to equilibrate that equation is futile. Rather, what is required is what I told Keen several years ago, i.e. the higher workable and ethical disequilibrium by combining a universal dividend and high percentage discount/rebate policies strategically implemented at the point of retail sale (which is the terminal expression point of all forms of inflation) thus inverting/transforming the present individual monetary scarcity reality which again is a signature of paradigm change.

Having said all of this it really doesn’t matter whether one thinks that the problem is a trend or an inherent and continual condition…only the deeper realization that the current monetary paradigm is enforced on the situation keeping all of its seemingly unresolvable problems in suspension/stimulation….and that the policy combination I recommend is the universally beneficial resolution for all agents.

AZ:  First, let me note that Steve Keen developed a system of differential equations model based on differentiating macro level accounting identities. Then he noted that this model had solutions which had a Great Moderation – a long period of stability, followed by a sudden collapse, just as happened in the GFC. On this basis he predicted the GFC. So I am not sure of the sense in which Salter’s model is new. However, the main point of my post is different.
In response to my post, many authors agree that a major paradigm shift is needed. They go on to say that they have ALREADY created the required new paradigm. However, they have not been able to get a consensus on their improved model. This is the MAIN point. Given a conventional model A, and a contender B, can we create consensus on methods for evaluating them both and assessing which model is better? Currently we have no such methodology – anybody can come in with a model C and say my model is better – there is no way to PROVE or to DISPROVE such an assertion. After explaining how the models of Lucas and Sargent were completely ridiculous, Solow goes on to say that these models do not pass “the smell test”. This then is the ONLY methodology available to the TOP experts in the field. Given two models smell both of them – the better model will smell better. If this is the best method available, it is no wonder the field is a mess.
We have witnessed many debates and arguments about good and bad models and alternatives, all on an ad-hoc basis. We need to move to a META-level – HOW do we decide on such arguments? Can we create a consensus on how models are to be evaluated and compared. The current implicit consensus is that you can make any model you like, if it has maximization and equilibrium is it a good model. If it produces match to real world observations that is even better, but it is not required. This is a hopelessly bad methodology.

Me:  Macro-economic theory is at the same point that the Copernican helio-centric hypothesis was after Gallileo used the invention of the telescope to see the moons of Jupiter but before Kepler discovered the ellipse and Leibniz and Newton invented calculus. As I have posted here before one of the primary signatures of a paradigm change is the discovery of a new tool or insight/re-discovery of an overlooked prior tool, that examined, presents new insights. That re-discovered tool is double entry bookkeeping and its new economic and monetary insight is that, the pricing, money and accounting systems being digital (that is equal amounts of money and prices, money and debt and debits and credits equal to zero) a 50% discount/rebate policy of equal amounts at the point of sale throughout the entire economic process and at its terminal ending point at retail sale….can be used to painlessly linearize price deflation throughout that same process and effectively double individual’s free and available incomes when the policy is finally executed at retail sale. These are its temporal universe effects not just a theory.

The meta level economic discovery is that the natural state of the temporal universe, despite a lot of interesting seeming scientific randomness due to space and time, is merely a large scale perception problem of its actual and deeper almost utterly integrated quantum state of process and flow, and that hence the various aspects of the natural philosophical concept of grace as in a dynamic, interactive and integrative process and flow are the guideposts for economic theory.

This has been said repeatedly by the wise for millenia, but that doesn’t make it anything other than excellent advice. A person about to die sees everything in its proper perspective. When one can no longer experience anything  they would beg to experience the color gray, take another deep breath, see the clouds move, have a cold drink of water or see their grandchild laughing and playing. The present moment is blessed and anyone who lives their life that way is equally so.

Calgucus,

Yes, because the ECB will not come across with sufficient Euros and prevents member states from creating them themselves such a round about path is necessary. However, if the EU and its central bank (or a separate monetary authority) was to simply implement a relatively high percentage discount/rebate policy in the places I suggest, particularly at the point of retail sale which is both the terminal ending point of the entire legitimate economic/productive process and also the terminal expression point for any and all price inflation…a high enough percentage discount and rebate would not only end any inflation, but actually be able to integrate price deflation painlessly and beneficially into profit making systems for both the individual and commercial agents. It’s the difference between

1) palliating a problem and resolving it,

2) using a deeper understanding of double entry bookkeeping’s digital nature, the economic and temporal universe significances of the point of sale and of retail sale and so

3) seeing how it is able to integrate factors to the point of direct and immediate effect and also accomplish inversion and transformation of the problem…all of which are primary signatures of paradigm changes.

You see the problem with macro-economists is they look through a glass darkly. Steve Keen correctly observed several years ago that economists could get their PhDs in economics without so much as taking an elementary course in accounting. I complimented him on that insight and directed him to look at the subset of double entry bookkeeping, cost accounting, and also at the digital natures of the debt, money, and accounting systems, but apparently he neglected to do so. Hence I see that he is still trying to solve the real monetary problem of the economy (scarcity of aggregate individual income) by referencing the velocity of money on his patreon site. Of course the velocity of money is a circuit of money whose relevance to adding aggregate individual income is zero to nil. Why? Because:

1) the classical illustration of the velocity of money is false because it shows businessmen treating business revenue as if it were their individual income which a) it is not b) it is accounting fraud to treat it as such and c) if you do it only a little bit you end up having to stiff your vendors which both wrecks your business and also ultimately bankrupts you.

2) no matter how much money is circulating/re-circulating within the economy is again by definition business revenue….it doesn’t create any additional individual purchasing power…because increased business revenue doesn’t one for one or even at all translate into the vast majority of labor’s income going up.

So if economists would instead look at the facts/realities in my post above this one, they’d be able to discover policies that indeed WOULD increase aggregate individual incomes directly and business revenue reciprocally….and poof! A large component of macro-economic figure-figure would dissipate and the new paradigm would become apparent to them.

Science, whose mindset is doubt, has a hard time stopping or turning around and re-consulting for solutions with wisdom from which it arose out of and split from over 500 years ago.

If the complexity of the economy forces one into a hunt for the right differential equation or group thereof and which may inherently be uncertain anyway….then why not seek to overtly yet unobtrusively linearize the positive effects one wants to see in the economy?  Market worshipers and the “we must only use the plodding and uncertain tools of math and science” crew are alike terminally orthodox, despite the fact that paradigm changes are marked by the suddenness of mental and temporal inversions. Hence chaos may be interesting, but good, rational and ethical order is smarter, wiser and more direct the same as is Wisdom:

The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it.

Proverbs 27: 12

Also:

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Romans 1: 22

When after 5000 years of the reign of the paradigm of Debt Only and 500 years of its coalescence by private finance it becomes necessary for Mankind to dissolve the problems that such have oppressed them with and assume among the powers of the earth, a new paradigm which aligns with the laws of nature and establishes the right of every citizen to a satisfactory level of the abundance made possible by the past and present level of technological productive capability that their economies are capable of.

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that the social contract endows and entitles them with and to the above cultural heritage especially if it is accomplished by a new monetary and economic paradigm that lifts the covert or unconscious oppression currently afflicting both the individual and commercial agents. —–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —–That whenever any form of overt or covert government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new political, economic and monetary government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —–Such has been the patient sufferance of humanity and its civilizations for the entirety of its last 5000 years; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of economics, money and politics. The history of the present monetary and economic paradigm is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over Mankind. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Economies are increasingly productive and yet curiously less stably and less equitably so.

An honest and scholarly examination of human history shows that the enforcement of the current paradigm of Debt/Burden/Cost Only has been a factor, the operant factor and a too little examined factor in the eventual dissolution and collapse of human civilizations for the last 5000 years.

That over the last 500 years private finance has utilized its monopolistic money creating powers and profit therefrom to dominate and manipulate human governments and to hypnotize economists, politicians and the general populace into believing that there is no alternative to the current paradigm.

That the general populace partially consciously recognizes this domination and hence has begun to assert its natural and historic dissatisfaction with it in ways that are less than savory and have equally historically resulted in political fractiousness, rebellion and eventually the collapse and end of civilizations….instead of, with the help of their leaders, pursued a new integration of the particles of truths, workabilities, applicabilities and highest ethical considerations of presently assumed opposite perspectives.

We the people of the United States of America must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which announces our declaration of independence from the old paradigm and allegiance to the philosophy and policies of the new one of Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Grace as in Gifting, and beseech the rest of mankind to bond with us in this unmistakable progression of economics and money systems.

Signed

Steven Craig Hummel