Me:  Extremely important understanding. It means that what economics actually needs is a new philosophy. In fact it also signals that what is required is a new paradigm to be integrated into the present monetary and economic systems. The signature of paradigm changes has always been a swapping/inversion of position of dominance/primacy and also a thorough integration of opposites which re-integrates all of the components of the entire system. As the Copernican helio-centric paradigm change was a swapping/inversion of the position of the earth and the sun and the understanding that the sun was to be considered the primary astrological center it was a thorough integration of opposites and a re-integration of the entire system. As Finance is the current dominant/primary business model and its enforced paradigms for the individual are Only Via Debt/ Loan and For Enterprise, For Production Only, so direct monetary Gifting For Consumption is its opposite. Intelligently integrated and implemented into the digital money system this would end the curious and almost entirely overlooked dominance of Finance in what is supposedly a system that advocates free competitive markets, re-integrating and stabilizing both the micro and macro economy.

JD:  The question for a science, which economics should be, is whether a mathematical construction bears a useful resemblance to the observable world. This can only be decided by *observation*.

Going on about Godel’s theorem only continues the confusion that mathematics is science. It is not. It is a tool used in science.

Me:  Economics should strive toward scientific status, however, human beings and enterprises and their leadership not being altogether rational and ethical actors will always make any theory less than scientific. It’s just the nature of the system, the agents in it and hence the body of knowledge itself. Economic theory should strive most importantly and urgently for Wisdom. Science is a form of Wisdom actually, but an incomplete form. We need “the full armor” of Wisdom which includes science, philosophy and ethics, and we need an open mind to new ideas regarding all three.

GD:  Craig, I don’t disagree with your description of what economics needs to consider, but your picture of “science” seems to be that it deals only with inexorable clockwork mechanisms. Modern science includes complex self-organising systems that can embrace living systems without killing them. I’m not saying it’s easy, but it’s not excluded.

So when I say economics should be a science, I’m really only saying that it should look for the regularities discernible in observations and describe them. Even human affairs have some patterns, imperfect though they may be. Otherwise, why would historians bother?

Me:  Not really. There is actually three types of science. Orthodox science, “good” open minded science and scientific breakthroughs which are generally characterized by a re- integration of a scientific viewpoint that is aided and abetted by an aspect or aspects of consciousness. The most recent of which was Einstein’s imagination/visualization of a man leaping out of a window and sliding down space-time. Physics has been struggling for almost 100 years to reconcile quantum realities with empirical particles when they would probably be smarter to realize that the quantum universe where particles continually come into being and then go back out of existence is perfectly reflective of the actions of human consciousness reaching out and experiencing the temporal universe and then withdrawing from it and in so doing that part of the temporal universe…for them and in that moment….goes out of existence for them. This does not invalidate the reality of the physical/temporal universe, but it does mean that our consciousness and its actions are reflective of quantum reality and are very likely a factor that rigid and arrogant orthodox scientific empiricism/positivism unconsciously uses to impede scientific breakthrough. Economics would undoubtedly scientifically benefit from the inclusion of consciousness and its many reflectivities in considering new policies.

Me:  If economic theories cannot be proven correct, which is true, then the correct and wise thing to do is to focus on the best, most beneficial for all economic philosophy and its aligned policies. In other words look/think/integrate and do not fail to act….to correct the economy’s historically problematic facts/areas. Market worship and any other present orthodoxy then is exposed as irresponsibility and/or conscious or unconscious defense of the status quo. Here’s a short list of such problematic facts/areas:

1) Chronic/continual scarcity of individual income
2) Chronic inflation
3) The monopolistic dominance of Finance’s monetary paradigms of Debt, Loan and For Production Only (This has been problematic for at least the last 5000 years)

One last little hint: Integration/Wisdom has always been the process of resolving opposites in a way that combines their particles of truth, workabilities and highest ethical considerations and simultaneously deletes their untruths etc.

One of the deepest secrets of the cosmos is reflectivity. It is also one of the primary and highest aspects of consciousness. Reflectivity denotes twoness/duality/withdrawal/inaction from the temporal/physical universe.

The deepest secret of the cosmos is Oneness and it is also the primary and highest aspect of consciousness. Oneness is accomplished by the act of reaching out to the physical/temporal universe and consciously becoming one with it. When one reaches out to the temporal universe it becomes real to one. When one’s consciousness withdraws from something in the temporal universe in that moment and for all practical purposes it ceases to be real to one. Reaching and withdrawing of consciousness are the actions of a conscious being in the temporal universe. They also exactly reflect the state of the quantum universe where particles are continually coming into being and going out of being within a field of consciousness all three states being so utterly integrated that they are virtually a oneness. Basically the only difference between the quantum reality and temporal reality is that there is a lot more space and time in the temporal universe and consciousness is more subtle and so missed, while in the quantum universe consciousness is a fully integrated and active part of it.

In the final and most important analysis insisting on maintaining a positive balance of trade is a form of dominance, and dominance being unethical on its face it cannot be a part of or a justification for economic policy.

Steve Hummel 03/24/2017

and all of the nations social, political and economic problems immediately become easily resolvable as well.

How could you have price inflation if there was a substantial (and rebated back to enterprise) discount to prices at every cost/price totalizing and stopping point throughout the entirety of the economic/productive process including retail sale itself.

Answer: You couldn’t.

1. Economic Theory is not scientific, does not address the economy as it actually is and must be re-assessed.
2. Modern economies do not tend toward equilibrium.
3. The primary economic and monetary systemic problem is that the rate of flow of total costs/prices continually exceeds the rate of flow of total individual incomes with which to liquidate those costs/prices and hence is in a state of individual monetary disequilibrium.
4. Injecting money into the economy by government via enterprise does not resolve the underlying cost inflationary nature of the economy because it merely re-initiates the systemic problem thus not changing the problematic ratio in #3 above.  
5. The current enforced monetary paradigms of Debt, Loan and For Production Only all incur additional costs and so prevent the resolution of modern economies’ primary problem.
6. A new monetary paradigm must be integrated into the debt based money system in order to actually resolve the primary problem.
7. The new monetary paradigm must be direct to the individual and must also enable enterprise to survive and profit.
8. The new monetary paradigm is Direct and Reciprocal Gifting.
9. The policies that reflect and enable the resolution of modern economies’ primary problem are a continuing direct and costless monetary gift to the individual and a discount to the retail price of every business model to its clients that is reciprocally and fully rebated back to them by a monetary authority mandated specifically to do so.
10. Innovation and artificial intelligence will increasingly reduce costs, however, the best way to promote that tendency and prevent it from being thwarted and/or costs to be diverted elsewhere is to continually downsize the necessity of finance with a truly abundant universal dividend and a discount percentage that clearly exceeds any arbitrary or circumstantial price inflation. 

Also perfectly reflects The Cosmic Code

I’m for profit making economic systems. The difference between myself and conservative, libertarian and liberal theorists is I understand that a new philosophy and aligned policies are necessary in order for profit making systems to survive in modern technologically advanced form. The above theorists on the other hand believe we should merely cut cost and let the market clear and “do its magic” or merely increase money flow via continual borrowing from Banks. I’m for increased money/individual income flow, and I’m also for cutting costs as a valid and understandable economic competitive strategy, but I realize, except perhaps in extreme and unsustainable circumstances, because costs and hence prices as a flow continually exceed the flow of individual incomes….that markets in fact do NOT clear.

What this means in the current set up of the system is that the only way for the system to survive is to continually borrow in order to increase individual incomes. Of course this does not resolve the systems actual deepest problem because continual borrowing incurs a flow of CONTINUAL and ADDITIONAL costs. Continual borrowing currently makes the business model of Finance an absolutely necessary and dominating force in the economy, and as domination in any form is prima facie and fait accompli  unethical, the enforcement by Finance of the monetary paradigms of Debt, Loan and For Production Only must yield to an additional paradigm of Gifting both directly to the individual via a continuing dividend and a retail discount, and reciprocally back to every enterprise at the point of their final discounted “retail” product. Finally, because nature abhors both a stasis and is in a continual state of flux and flow itself, a mere statistical equilibrium aka “a balancing of the books” does not and cannot enable stability. One must overcome the orthodoxy/paradigm of equilibrium as well.

The way to resolve this (and this is characteristic of paradigm changes down through history) is to invert the position of the current dominant paradigm/reality with the new one. As the Copernican helio-centric astronomical paradigm switched the positions of the earth and the sun so the new paradigm of Gifting must be switched with the old ones of Debt, Loan and For Production Only and so become the new primary financial paradigm. Likewise, the old problematic ratio of total costs/prices exceeding total individual incomes must be inverted as well. This is accomplished with an abundant dividend and a retail discount percentage sufficient to accomplish price deflation, and hence will, in itself, make the continual flow of incomes exceed the flow of costs/prices, effecting a CONTINUAL downsizing of the NECESSITY of finance and so a freeing “higher disequilibrium”. This is the final stabilization of the economy and even though there may always be perturbations in it, along with technological innovation and now artificial intelligence, the inversion of the problematic ratio will more rapidly accomplish an ideal akin to orbital free flowingness.

Yes, the laws of thermo-dynamics are essential in understanding the deepest problem with modern economies…and a full understanding of a NATURAL concept of negative entropy is necessary in order to craft policies that resolve it.

Steve Hummel 03/21/2017

What economics (and probably most of Man’s systems) really needs is a new philosophy. You know, the thing that can include all of the figure-figure-figure of economics and policies that have far better ethical end results than the current 250 year old strains have largely failed to accomplish….for like 250 years.

What if there was a philosophical concept that contained and encompassed the above bothness and even a more integrated and unified thirdness. That might be a good place for economists to start looking for that new philosophy.