Nothing Further Bad Economically Can Possibly Happen….

….after retail sale. Why? Because retail sale is where production becomes consumption, i.e. ownership. If possesion is 90% of the law, consumption is 99.99% of economics.

Thus the point of retail sale is the perfect place to implement powerful, positive and effective monetary and economic policy.  A 50% discount/rebate policy at retail sale simultaneously doubles every individual’s purchasing power and the business revenue available for every enterprise’s goods and services, and as retail sale is the terminal ending point of the actually economic and productive process a 50% discount at that point eliminates any possibility of inflation as the normal garden variety vice of inflation is virtually always a low single digit percentage and hyperinflations very rarely occur and always require at least several very disruptive, negative and rare set of circumstances.

The follow on benefits of this and the other policies, regulations and structural changes recommended in my book Wisdomics-Gracenomics are considerable.  Everyone’s earnings at least double, your social security check doubles, your pension check doubles and with the universal dividend policy every college student now has $24,000/yr. to live on and pay for his or her’s college tuition as they attend and so do not become weighed down with $50-75,000 of debt after they graduate. If everyone 18 and older gets a $1000/mo. dividend and that is doubled by the 50% discount/rebate policy every adut is guaranteed $24,000/yr. of purchasing power. Thus why would individuals and enterprise have to be taxed for welfare, unemployment insurance and social security?

Recognizing the power and policy significance of retail sale is the new insight that always accompanies a paradigm change.

 

 

 

 

 

5. Many other benefits follow on from this policy

Advertisements

Posted To WEA Pedogogy Blog

The power to create money is not the only problem. The form, character and pattern, i.e. the paradigm of money created is even more important and problematic especially when it is monopolistically enforced and controlled by a self interested agent and only in the form of Debt. The question before us is how, where and at what point in the economic process can a new monetary and financial paradigm be implemented so as to resolve the generally agreed upon problems of individual and systemic monetary scarcity and the tendency for the present system to be price and asset inflationary.

Posted To RWER Blog 05/29/2019

The financial elite would love for us to (forever) quibble over the nature of money and debate reforms like MMT rather than examine the idiocies of giving a self interested business model monopoly and paradigmatic control over the most powerful factor in the economy, namely money/credit-debt creation.

How to break up that monopoly and paradigmatic control is the only true order of the day. That and how such break up can bring more economic democracy and free flowingness to the economy….among many other benefits to all agents as I have enumerated here many, many times.

Paradigms and Zeitgeists

Me:  Interesting discussion on Knight. Philosophy is a level of understanding above science which includes and requires ethics. Paradigms are par excel-lance integrative concepts in that they are purely mental/conceptual and yet understanding them changes an entire pattern in the temporal universe as well. Paradigms and paradigmatic thinking are replete with paradoxes, conceptual oppositions, inversions, transformations, simplicities of operation that due to their philosophical difference and temporal universe point of execution create deep, complex and significant effects.

If debt, its nature and the monopolistic enforcement of that nature even to the point of economic collapse is the problem how can monetary gifting not be the answer?

If the zeitgeist of Hunting and Gathering was enchanted and benevolent dependence on the ecology for survival and Agriculture, Homesteading and Civilization was de-natured material accumulation and consolidation of power then why is not grace as in relative abundance and re-enchanted benevolent and ethically redeemed power not the next zeitgeist and progression?

S7:  @ craig – right!! Knight’s notions of economics were also ‘above science’. Which was one of many reasons for his deep disappointment at how economics developed at Chicago and elsewhere following WW2. See Ross’s writings on this.

Me:  Yes, apparently he had a sense of philosophy and genuine ethics instead of the mere and paltry “ethic” of profit, power and control.

Self Awareness, Philosophy and The New Paradigm In Economics and The Money System

KZ:   Garrett and Craig, in other words, why was money invented? No one really knows all the details.

Ancient Greece was the first civilization to be transformed by money, but shortly thereafter money colonized all cultures after the Greeks. Humans have found many ways to bring order to the flow of experiences and consciousness. Money is one of the most important. Money is strictly a human invention in that it is itself a metaphor; it stands for something else. Just about anything else. It allows humans to structure life in complex ways not available to them before the invention of money. This metaphorical quality gives money a central role in the organization of societies and cultures. Money represents an infinitely expandable way of structuring value and social relationships—personal, political, and religious as well as commercial and economic. Money created marketplaces everywhere it went. Money created a new urban geography in giving rise to towns and cities centered on the marketplace rather than the palace or temple. The exchange of goods demanded new commercial routes over land and sea from one market town/city to the next, thereby creating a web of commerce that linked all these market cities/towns. This new social network founded on commerce and money gave rise to a new political system. Alexander the Great expanded this new commercial network and with it spread the new political system, which would eventually become democracy.

Greek became the language of commerce, and of political and religious discussion. The Greek spoken in the markets of Iberia and Palestine was not the classical Greek of Aristotle and certainly not the ancient Greek of Homer. The merchants used a simple, almost pidginized form of shop Greek, but this language proved capable of conveying great ideas far beyond the needs of simple market exchange. The marketplaces of the Mediterranean became focal points for discussing a new kind of religion. The followers of Jesus used the simplified market Greek to spread their ideas from one market center to another. The language of the New Testament was called “God’s Poor Greek.” This allowed for the rise of a “common person’s” religion, open to all people. Christianity raged through the cities of the Mediterranean as a totally new and revolutionary concept in religion. It was a uniquely urban religion that had none of the fertility gods or weather gods of the sun, wind, rain, and moon associated with farmers. It was the first religion that sought to leap over the social and cultural divisions among people and unite them in a single world religion. Its followers actively sought to make Christianity a universal religion; they did so in much the same way that money was creating a universal economy. A thousand years after Jesus, Islam followed the example of Christianity, creating another world religion.

According to anthropologist Ruth Benedict, every culture organizes life around a few core principles, activities, and beliefs; from which all institutions and activities hang like apples on a tree. That core for western culture is money. Money is the cultural configuration of western culture. But money was not the configuration for all cultures. The Dogon of Mali organized their lives around art and ritual, the Nuer around cows, the ancient Egyptians around death, the Aztecs around human sacrifice, and the Papuans around marriages, yams, and pigs. Each of these offered a focus for conducting the essential activities of life. The odd abstraction we call money would make no sense to these people, just as we would find their cultures strange and unappealing. Money, by contrast with these forms of aesthetic and biological satisfaction, lacks immediacy; yet in modern society, money serves as the master key that unlocks nearly all pleasures—as well as many pains. Money constitutes the focal point of modern world culture. Money explains nearly all relationships among people, not just between customer and merchant in the marketplace or employer and laborer in the workplace. Ever more in modern society, money designates relationships between parent and child, among friends, between politicians and constituents, among neighbors, and between clergy and parishioners. Money forms the central institutions of the modern market and economy, and around it is grouped the ancillary institutions of kinship, religion, and politics. Money is much more today than the language of commerce. Yes, humans have yet to work out the consequences of this dominance of money. It seems necessary but they don’t always like it and worry about its longer term implications for Sapiens’ survival. Our species has taken wrong evolutionary and cultural turns before. Is money one of these?

In the 20th and 21st centuries money has changed. Credit card served as an easy accounting device in a world where people no longer bought and sold goods and where the government had either replaced or become a partner with the market. Money no longer had value in terms of gold, silver, or any other commodity. It had become merely “an algebraical symbol for comparing the values of products with one another.” Money had become just accounting. The credit card increased purchasing and, therefore, production and services, but it did so at the cost of increased individual (the single consumer of neoclassical and neoliberal economists) debt and international inflation. But credit cards also increased the status of some and lowered it for others. By the end of the 20th century spending for luxury and pleasure was the new metaphor created for money. According to Georg Simmel, “when money stands still, it is no longer money.” Following the credit card, electronic money, spending, and investing have increased the speed of money a thousand-fold. This new subterranean or invisible money is changing western society in fundamental ways. We now live in the “age of money.” Money mostly defines and controls our lives today. What began as clearly a human invention is now a metaphor for the most powerful and uncontrollable power on Earth.

Me:  I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with the details of that chronology, but as I have pointed out here before, history and its human adjunct study anthropology, are the chronology of humanity’s relative lack of self awareness/unconsciousness. And therein is the real problem….as you yourself come around to observe at the end of your post. Therefore, the real problem is that humanity has not cognited on the insight expressed and emphasized in the zen Buddhist saying: Wherever YOU go THERE. YOU. ARE.

Economics and the money system need a new philosophy the study of which includes ethics. As a new paradigm is a singularly unifying philosophical concept that resolves the deepest and most chronic problems of the current paradigm and thus creates an entirely new pattern in the body of knowledge/area of human endeavor that it applies to….a new philosophical concept that defines the new pattern ought to be the front and center concern of all economists and economic pundits….no?

JV:  Sorry Craig, but our theories are irreconcilable. In mine, delineated from first principles, fiat money is strictly a unit of account. Following that truth, until contradicted, it’s a no-thing without a quantity, velocity, or any identity attributable to a thing. No perceivable monetary manipulation can change that reality, only an alternate reality from a different set of first principles could possibly do so. I’m afraid, aside from contradicting mine, that’s your only option. Why don’t you give it a try?

Me:  So you’re agreeing with me that money is basically accounting. Good. You’re problem is you’re simply refusing to “up your game” to utilize philosophy and to look at the economic/legitimately productive process itself. Apparently you think “bean counting” is all that is necessary to fix the economic, financial and money systems.

Have you ever had to pay more than the price of retail sale? Except for the supposedly legitimate economic/productive business model of finance, of course you haven’t. Utilizing the knowledge that retail sale is the terminal ending point and hence by definition must be the terminal expression point for every legitimate factor including cost, all forms of inflation and price, then a simple algebraic operation can change scarcity of individual income into abundance of same and harmful price and asset inflation into beneficial price deflation…..”miraculously” even in profit making systems.

Paradigm changes are always characterized by conceptual opposition to the current paradigm and inversion/transformation of same. And the actual operation performed to bring about the paradigm change is always basically very simple and yet relevant and deeply affecting.

 

Grace and Chaos

On a scale chaos/randomity/unknowingness is the less conscious state immediately below the highest conscious state of grace as in serenity/knowingness. Awareness of chaos/randomity/unknowingness is actually a very high state of awareness and essential for space-time and action. If you can’t un-know something you’re stuck with it. The action of consciousness is entirely reaching and withdrawing. Tat Tvam Asi.

Major Signatures of Paradigm Changes

Me:  Dave,

Varoufakis is just like virtually every other economist, extremely erudite on his subject matter and the process of REFORM….and a paradigm perception dunce.

Of course there is a process AFTER a new paradigm is recognized, but it’s really only with those who haven’t cognited on it yet and once it becomes a reality someplace its recognized by the human population there and elsewhere that its such a phenomenally progressive step that everyone copies it. That’s historically verifiable. When a single hunter-gatherer stopped being nomadic, settled in one place and created enough food to feed three tribes, well, that was the end of hunting and gathering as a lifestyle.

Learn the signatures of historical paradigm changes…and you’ll have paradigm perception/wisdom:

1) Discovery or re-discovery of a new insight/new innovation that resolves long term current paradigm problems (the 50% discount rebate policy at the point of retail sale/the missed “hiding in plain sight” recognition that retail sale is the terminal ending, cost and price summing and final problem expression point of the entire economic, actually productive process and hence a simple mathematical operation can reverse systemic realities)

2) Conceptual Opposition (Debt/burden/obligation to re-pay vs Monetary Gifting)

3) Inversion/Transformation (Individual income scarcity and systemic monetary austerity to abundance of same)

4) Resolution of long standing current paradigm problems. (Individual income scarcity and chronic inflation)

5) Permanent change/progression in the area of human endeavor that the paradigm change takes place in. (pick your own paradigm example)

6) End of the primacy/monopoly of the major structural entity of the old/current paradigm and replacement of it by a new primary structure conceptually aligned with the new paradigm. (private finance to finance as public utility)

7) Paradox (Increased freedom and ability to consume [if intelligently and wisely regulated and incentivized] rather than becoming profligate ecocidal idiocy, instead enables forthright and immediate movement toward ecologically sane consumption and ability to finance whatever projects are needed to reduce CO2 etc.)

KZ:  Craig, just one question for you. Why would any modern financial millionaire or billionaire accept, let alone champion your proposal over the current economic arrangements that have and will continue to make them rich?

Me:  They wouldn’t of course. But they are few, we are many and when the constituency of we awakens to the fact that the policies, regulations and structural changes of Wisdomics-Gracenomics immediately more than doubles their purchasing power, doubles the actually available money for their goods and services, doubles the doubled purchasing power for new homes, electric vehicles and any product that reduces our carbon footprint, doubles the doubled purchasing power of savings, lowers every individual’s and commercial agent’s taxes and amongst loads of other “spill over” benefits in other areas of life that finance has wheedled its way into also enables us to escape oppressive homo economicus’s subset of purposes labeled Employment Only and choose from the set of All Positive and Constructive Purposes…..the alleged power of finance will fold like a rag doll. And if they don’t, then “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

KZ:  Craig, I don’t give a damn for economics or economists. But in the “real world” when challenging an existing way of life, such as neoliberal economies, winners and losers in keeping vs. abandoning that way of life must be considered. Those who benefit from neoliberal economies will oppose your “new” paradigm if the change hurts them or their friends. No matter how much the change might help those hurt by neoliberalism. It’s better to figure out how you propose to handle this fight before launching the “new” way of life. I speak from many years of experience. By the way, in my experience most of the proposed changes lose this fight.

Me: Who loses with the policies of Wisdomics-Gracenomics? Virtually no one, that’s who. Even the vast majority of the managerial class in private finance will be able to find a job in the new publicly administered non-profit national banking system and with the dividend and 50% discount/rebate policies they probably won’t lose much or any purchasing power to boot. The benefits of the policies in my book are “all good”, “way good” and a huge increase in the 99%’s purchasing power, lifestyle, chronic mental state and also builds an institutional infrastructure that will enable them to choose to work on their personal problems and self actualize the higher thoughts, emotions and attitudes of wisdom.

If the entirety of that can’t be “sold” and or acculturated then maybe we shouldn’t be called homo sapiens i.e. “wise and discerning man”.

KZ:  Craig, perhaps you are correct. But I suggest you brief some folks likely to question your plan and get their input on objections it might raise. Forewarned is forearmed. Just a suggestion. I always take this precaution myself.

Me:  Well, I thought that was what I was doing in posting here. Unfortunately there has been almost zilch actual questioning about/analysis of the policies, philosophy and paradigmatic studies I’ve enumerated here hundreds of times. All I get is cynicism, doubt, probable non-comprehension, occasional attempts at invalidation or no response at all (all of which are typical responses to new paradigms considering that new paradigms are always in conceptual opposition to orthodoxies surrounding and the precise concept of the current/old paradigm).

I’m ready to take specific questions regarding the actual policies, regulations and philosophy of Wisdomics-Gracenomics and about assertions regarding them. Let’s have an actual discussion. It might be an opportunity for me to learn.

KZ:   Craig, you’re confused a bit. Money is not basically, or any other way, accounting. It’s the reverse. Accounting is constructed to serve the needs of money. Including uncovering when money is not money and when money is used for purposes other than those of money. In institutions organized around money, money input can be more, less, or the same as money output, depending on the purposes of the institution. Humans really don’t lack self-awareness. The “self” is, like society and culture socially constructed, and much of that work is held tacitly by humans, after the work is done. This could make it seem humans lack self-awareness. The problem is twofold. First, human imagination never ceases, so humans are always “making-up” other societies, other cultures, and other selves. Just too much happening for any of us to be aware of it all. Second, the notion of self-awareness and conscious/unconscious is also “made-up” by humans, so their forms are variable, both over time and over geographical location.

Craig, you use terms such as “bean counting,” “retail sale,” “accounting” as if their connotation and use is fixed, unchanging. But each has a history. That history is the source of connotation and uses. And that history embodies one or more cultures. This relationship is joint. Humans make cultures and history, and cultures and history make humans.

Me:  Ken,

I’m not confused about money, accounting, retail sale or consciousness.

Steve Keen only recently discovered how important accounting is to the economy and the money system when he bemoaned the fact that economists could get their PhD in economics without so much as taking an elementary course in it. He then went about proving that the monetary/financial system de-stabilizes the economy via differential equations in order to re-discover what C. H. Douglas originally discovered via doing the calculus on the datums of cost accounting.

I said “money is BASICALLY accounting”….and that is both correct, significant and potentially extremely insightful. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have other purposes of course as you point out. However, basics are extremely important as I’m sure you would agree.

The same is true for the basic temporal universe economic fact and point of retail sale as I have elaborated here many times.

Personality is essentially delusion. Consciousness itself is not….no matter to whomever or whatever one attributes it. And there are definitely levels and modes of consciousness and ways of experiencing it. At the top of the scale of ways to experience it are knowingness with lookingness right below that. Science i.e. abstractingness is a few levels below these two.

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

KZ:  I have difficulty taking seriously this reliance on “general equilibrium” of any form. No other science, physical or social moves in such a tangent to what actual data shows. The focus now in all the sciences is moving equilibrium. What’s called recurrence in chaos thinking. Our chaos concept requires the system (network) to come back to the neighborhood of its current state at some point in the future, and to do so again and again. This is the way everyday systems come into balance. Between the periods of recurrence, the system can and does swing a lot or little in multiple or a single direction. Anthropologists and historians encounter networks. It’s their work. Everything they conclude and write is based on these encounters. So, they know from experience that the “normal” for most systems is not equilibrium, except in the recurrence sense of that term. Enough predictability and durability to make society and culture possible, but never enough to make them steady or stable perpetually. They also know that the divisions between things like politics, economics, religion, government, etc. are made-up, cultural fictions that will change with time and circumstances. Economists need more course work in history and anthropology.

Me:  Completely agree on the orthodoxy regarding equilibrium and the need for economists to utilize history and anthropology. Integrative studies aid in cultivating wisdom which is the ultimate integrative study.

Equilibrium theory in economics is an unfortunate hold over from classical economics. The economy and all systems are actually in a continual state of dynamic, interactive, integrative disequilibrium. We should be pursuing “the higher monetary, ethical and sane disequilibrium” not the delusion of equilibrium.