Set tax rate of 7% on one’s first $10,000,000 of personal income and 90% on every cent above that mark, or 7% on every cent above that amount if you donate 90% of the rest of your individual income directly (not to the non-profit administering such charity) to a variety of charities selected by a wisdom council of the country’s major wisdom traditions and democratically voted on by the populace that address real problems that need to be resolved.
KZ: Many believe Keynes insists that the state must be the ultimate protector of the public good by changing and regulating markets. Keynes never says markets are always or even mostly unfair or unequal. Which makes me ask, does Keynes place conditions on the state’s role as the ultimate protector of the public good? For example, today does the state have an obligation to protect the public good and the vast majority of the populace that depend on it from the behavior of financial markets that threaten it and is that obligation absolute? Which brings up, for me this related question. Does the state have an absolute obligation to protect the integrity of democratic government, even to the point of destroying large corporations and/or members of the super-rich that attack it? I realize present economists shy away from such questions. But for those who are not members of the elites the answers to these questions are vital.
Me: Of course they have the obligation to protect the integrity of democratic government, and they don’t need to destroy large corporations and/or members of the super rich. They just need to create a stable, free flowing and integral economy with a new monetary paradigm…..and make damn good and sure that the aforementioned abide by the rules and regulations that will keep it from being gamed.
Think about it for a moment Ken, what is your best guess as to what the current monetary paradigm is?
KZ: Craig, so all we need to control greed, powerful billionaires, and Facebook is a new monetary paradigm? Even today’s messed up news coverage seems to indicate that’s not going to work. You’re not likely to get beyond the PR machines.
Me: Yes the math is beneficial for both individuals and enterprise. The both/and part of that sentence is what is the most important part of it. It indicates an integration/synthesis and means it is aligned with the natural philosophical/ethical concept of grace which is the pinnacle UNITARY concept behind every one of the world’s major wisdom traditions.
I disagree that the politics is bad. It’s true that our politics and soon our social fabric are insanely polarized, but there’s a Japanese word that escapes me presently that can be translated as BOTH crisis AND opportunity. It’s just that you have to discover and communicate an actual answer that is in the integrative/mutual interest of BOTH the individual AND enterprise….like the new monetary paradigm of Gifting for instance.
Monetary Gifting directly to the individual with a universal dividend and BOTH directly AND reciprocally implemented at the strategic point of retail sale with a 50% discount/rebate monetary policy is the way to rationally, effectively, ethically and stably create and maintain a truly fiat money system.
“The legal system would be turned over. As would the foundations of most moral systems and religions.”
The legal system and religious systems wouldn’t be destroyed as much as integratively transformed. The legal by a better focus (dynamic focus being an aspect of grace) on fact and relevance of issue, and our moral and religious systems would be re-focused on direct self actualized grace as in love in action as opposed to only Faith In their various dogmas, that is, the once removed from self actualization merely abstract religious mental stance.
Me: The only way to be able to keep the economy flowing and to finance both a bottom up explosion of green consumer technologies and finance the mega projects necessary to deal with the ecological crisis we face is to awaken to the directly distributive monetary paradigm of Gifting. That’s Gifting, Gifting, Gifting….GIFTING.
If one remembers the movie When Worlds Collide its premise (a looming extinction) is exactly what we face now. And even if climate change is BS, the end of the primary and non-renewable resource of petroleum, still leaves us with the end of civilization as we know it and the inevitable death of literally billions as a result of the collapse and chaos that WILL ensue.
It’s WAAAY overdue to begin thinking in pattern change/paradigmatic terms about money, finance and the economy. Reforms are trivial and imminently game-able, and erudite but impotent debate/argumentation is fruitless.
The end is literally near!
JC: I appreciate Mr. Fix’s analysis but I don’t think it’s quite that complicated. There are no externalities. There are only costs economists choose to leave out of their equations. Their reasons? Well, I think we all know their reasons because we know who pays their salaries. Is “environment” irrelevant and infinite? No, obviously not, on both counts. The changing global climate shows that puny humans have the capacity to destroy the world we all depend on. If economists did decide to include in their analyses the cost – present and future – of environmental exhaustion and destruction, how many global corporations would be profitable? Any of them? Perhaps not. Would you buy stock in a company whose business model depends on the destruction of the planet and the pretense that everything is OK? Do you currently own stock in such a company? It’s time to act and if economists can’t get with it we should leave them behind.
Me: “There are only costs economists choose to leave out of their equations.”
This is a great insight. If the economy is financially unstable as Steve Keen has re-discovered because the current paradigm of Debt ONLY enforces the continual build up of additional costs, then the ONLY way to resolve that situation is to PAY those costs with sufficient amounts of monetary gifts directly with a universal dividend to the individual and directly to consumers at retail sale and then reciprocally back to retail merchants so that they can be made whole on their overheads and profit margins.
G: Craig, the technical term ‘complexity’ that I use is not ‘complicatedness’. It is elaborate behaviour that can arise from simple interactions among simple components.
So your remarks do not apply, whatever the merits of your claim of new paradigm, which I admit I have not tried to fathom. Advocate your own, but do not dismiss that which you do not understand.
With all due respect I don’t see any significant difference between complicatedness and “elaborate behavior”. The latter is a description of emergent I believe, but the anomalies that kept emerging from Ptolemaic cosmology in trying to make it fit the motions observed and justify itself were (as it turned out) mere complications and were only resolved by the paradigm changing concept of helio-centrism, the new tool of the telescope and the discovery of the ellipse.
The emergent quality of financial instability likewise is only going to be resolved by recognizing the new monetary and financial paradigm I advocate, which fulfills all of the signatures of historical paradigm changes by the way.
Sharing. Direct and universal sharing. That would align it with the concept behind the new monetary paradigm of Gifting, the new ethic/zeitgeist and the newly cognited upon reality of the cosmos, namely that it is in an abundant, dynamic, interactive, integrative and free flowing state of grace.
Philanthropy of course also directly aligns with garce as in Monetary Gifting.
We are in disintegrative times….unless we discover the monetary, financial and economic new paradigm that will bring problem resolution and monetary and economic democracy…and the consequent justice and quiescence to the furies looming up before us.