Because you’re then trapped in opposition and contention only.  And being so stuck inevitably degenerates into ego involvement in opinion, conflict and resistance to the other. But, you say,  “a third opinion is subject to these same things” and you’d be right. And that is why understanding what an actual integration is, which is the combination of of only truths, only workabilities, only applicabilities, only solutions and only what is ethical for the individual….is so important. And of course beginning with the conscious intention to love is the first step.

It is this integrated scientific, philosophical and loving/spiritual process of refinement that can guide us forward to a genuine third and unifying future.

{ I/L –> [ (A x B)  <–>  G/C ] }

1                    2                     3

Me:  Does not the unworkability of orthodoxies on both the left and right make an integrative third alternative philosophy and policies the wise direction for economic theory?

An integrative third way that enhanced the lifestyle of the individual and also the viability and competitiveness of small to medium sized businesses while breaking up the monopoly powers of finance and dominant powers of corporations with global reach seems like the intelligent route toward the future.

PD:  Part of the reason why Hillary had such a bad campaign strategy — where she did not present a message to save income and jobs for blue collar workers — perhaps because economists like Krugman were for free trade and they were providing Hillary with economic advice

Being for free trade when the other nations are using the same technology but using child labor, longer hours, lower pay, no safety environment for workers, permitting pollution to spill out of factories merely to reduce the price of the product for consumers is a non progressive view of the economic system.

DM:  In my Brit experience, the equivalent types to Paul tend to support policies that they think will benefit ‘ordinary working people’, of whatever class or colour. The problem is that on some of the issues you raise, they seem to be wrong.

There may also be some cynical types about, but I give Paul the benefit of the doubt.

Me:   So what policies would enhance both the individual and small to medium sized business viability and that even large corporations couldn’t resist?

KZ:  So quite literally anything that inhibits homo sapiens from using their imaginations to create a communal way of life is a threat to the survival of homo sapiens.

Me:  I could not possibly agree more with this attitude. Imagination is the quality that orthodoxy lacks and is also one of the signatures of scientific and cultural break throughs. And I think that’s exactly what we need.

KZ:  I find little mention of anything akin to “justice” in any of the economic theories. In democratic societies the results of democratic processes such as elections are described as just and reasonable. But in those same societies the results of market operations are also considered just and reasonable. How can this occur since these two results are incompatible. Decisions in the two instances are based on wholly antipathetic beliefs and values.

DT:  As the modern (quantitative) forms of democracy and markets were developed by the same people and amount to the same thing (winner takes all) I am with Craig on this one. Justice amounts to equal exchange, but need and ability to meet it act in opposite directions even if they are quantitatively equal, and in reality peoples needs are usually both qualitatively and quantitatively different anyway. Wisdom, then, is not to pursue justice but to give freely and be grateful if one receives back freely, for then goodwill and trust are likely to be sustained. “To each according to his need, from each according to his ability”, indeed, but what’s missing from that is its motivation. Self-sacrificing love – giving what one can or forgiving with no strings attached – is needed to start the process and restart it when it breaks down. Most of us get that from our mothers, and need to be grateful for it when pride, ambition or despair obscures our minds.

Me:  If we’re trapped in Dualism we’re really and fatally trapped, because we’re then trapped in opposition and contention only. And being so stuck inevitably degenerates into ego involvement in opinion, conflict and resistance to the other. But, you say, “a third opinion is subject to these same things” and you’d be right. And that is why understanding what an actual integration is, which is the combination of only truths, only workabilities, only applicabilities, only solutions and only what is ethical for the individual….is so important. And of course beginning with the conscious intention to care, to love if you will, is the first step. And this is no parochial religiosity only, simply an integrated/integrative statement that this underlying intention inherent in every major wisdom tradition….is an essential aspect of any actual solution in any human sphere of activity, most especially one that effects everyone like economics

It is this integrated scientific, philosophical and loving/spiritual process of refinement that can guide us forward to a genuine third and unifying economic future.

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

Regarding econometrics and economic theory:

Me:  What if we considered and applied a concept whose nature was not only process/continual change, but also at the same time included the elements of additivity, linearity,opposition and the thirdness of synthesis? In other words a trinity-unity-oneness-process like for instance the Hegelian dialectic. (the Marxian variant is also a trinity-unity-oneness-process, but being thoroughly stuck in Dualistic contention with capitalism fails the integrative test for process and synthesis as does finance capitalism fail for the same and other reasons) Finding and applying a concept that includes and integrates all of these aspects could advance econometrics and economic theory.

KZ:    How long can they continue this before either the tensions this creates or the policies that implement it tear the societies apart?

Me:  “How long can they continue this before either the tensions this creates or the policies that implement it tear the societies apart?”

Short answer, not long, especially seeings how “the signs” are mostly bad and geo-political brinksmanship wed to continuing economic downturn rhymes so well with chaos and war.

All the more reason to consult and integrate not only science but also Wisdom in our search for economic cures. “Upping our game” in such a manner could remedy and reverse these trends. But we have to be willing to look at and utilize both.

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

Me:   It seems to me that we need to cultivate an integration of rationality and graciousness, both individually and systemically. Developing such an integrative mindset could turn us in the proper directions of both scientific progress and ethical ascension. If we had a model for integrating the truths in opposite factors and concepts the thirdness of both individual and systemic wisdom would become more apparent and attractive to us. Intellectual fragmentation is part of the problem, and the fragmentation of intellect from long observed ethical considerations is probably the core problem that keeps us from recognizing both individual and economic progress.

KZ:  Unfortunately, modern humans have shown themselves much better at war and killing than at wisdom. And science has manged to weaponize the entire world. But I still hope you are correct in the goal you set.

Me:  I don’t disagree with that historically, but I think an awful lot of that was the result of economic scarcity, enforced financial austerity and a politics focused on power while lacking actual wisdom.

Technology has capably eliminated the first for many and solving the problem of distribution via policies that broke up the second would enable modern economies to be stable and underdeveloped ones to create the abundance we have. As for politics, if we had a prep school for all political candidates that educated them about the policies that thoroughly rectified the financial austerity above for both the individual and enterprise and how history looks kindly upon leaders who integrate prosperity and peacefulness, perhaps we’d get better leaders….or at least ones that had the input of such wisdom and concern.

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

Regarding slavery and production in pre-civil war America:

Me:  Ethics is an essential, is THE essential aspect of any human system because systems were made for Man, not Man for systems. Unfortunately economics has been plagued by an ethics biased toward production as opposed to distribution. Maybe if we examined the curiously glaring monopoly financial paradigm of debt, loan and for production only and balanced and integrated a monetary paradigm of gifting into it, capitalism could begin to evolve again instead of devolving toward conflict and the chaos of war.

Deep, deeper and its test.

Steve Hummel 12/09/2016

Love is the core/essential experience of Life and Grace is its expression. Master these two and you’ll have the consciousness of God.

Steve Hummel 12/09/2016

Love moves you toward everything in Life, Joy makes everything a pleasure and Flow keeps Love and Joy going and re-starting.

Steve Hummel 12/09/2016

If what is required in economics is a new philosophy, then perhaps asking a philosopher/ethicist who also has an understanding of economics and economic theory is probably the first and best logical step in solving our current economic problems. And if you can find one that also has a good knowledge of the world’s wisdom traditions that would be an even better individual to consult.  If the fundamental direction of capitalism is up as Minsky said, the trinitarian integration of economics, philosophy/ethics and wisdom would be a reflectively ascendant affirmation of that truth regarding profit making economic systems.

Steve Hummel 12/08/2016

And so an integrative intellectual wholeness and oneness of truths and workabilities is precisely what is called for. And it is essential that we differentiate between integration and compromise. A compromise is the insertion of untruths and lesser workabilities and/or unworkabilities in an apparent integration that actually stops or slows actual change and generally caves to dominating present interests. Thus it is neither wisdom nor good science.

Excellent analysis from all. Economic theory not only needs re-working it requires a new philosophy around which policy can be crafted. The pace of change is now becoming the major factor in change itself, and we are still stuck in the “economic theory progresses one funeral at a time” pace. At the same time change needs to be grounded in pragmatism. Hence in order to get ahead of the curve instead of behind it we require a new philosophy which simultaneously integrates rapid, decisive, actual and ethical change with what works best for all given the real world circumstances. As wisdom is the process of integration itself and also the best integration of the pragmatic and the ideal I suggest that what we actually require is a Wisdomics, a new philosophy of economics actually mirroring the pinnacle concepts of Wisdom themselves. That would be actual wisdom, not bias parading itself as change but an actual integration of only truths and workabilities from apparently opposing ideologies. A science of wisdom that is.

And again the pace quickens toward an unhappy and not peaceful convergence of crises so a Wisdomics, a science of wisdom in all spheres of human activity, most urgently and importantly in economic theory, is strongly advised.

Me:  All that you say about neo-liberal macro is true. In addition economists, who could get their degrees without taking so much as an elementary course in accounting, have also lost track of total actual costs accumulating moment to moment and their increasing ratio to total individual incomes. Hence we see fixed capital assets and their depreciation costs accumulating for literally centuries while the easiest mark for increasing profits, labor costs, have steadily been raided. Now we have robotics and AI becoming increasingly disruptive economic forces that will reduce labor costs/aggregate individual demand especially for the mass of employees probably 30 times faster than it ever has before. And that is why monetary gifting must be integrated into our current monetary paradigm of Debt ONLY, for the individual and reciprocal price gifting to the consumer and then back to the merchant who gave the discount so that the productivity of innovation and AI is not diverted to the monopolistic business model of private finance.

DT:  Craig, I admire your summary of how much worse our problems are being made by robotics and AI, much as happened when steam powered factories enabled 19th century Britain to mass-produce surplus for international trade rather than use. In a way I’m also with you on the need for “monetary gifting”, but how is that going to resolve the problem of ” fixed capital assets and their depreciation costs accumulating for literally centuries”?

Me:  Viz the financial system perhaps we could have an integration of both partial and complete change in that the particle of truth of the current system, Debt, is integrated with an entirely new financial idea, Gifting, and this integration is so deep and sweeping that an actual third system arises out of it. This way the virtual financial monopoly of credit creation curiously enjoyed by private finance would be balanced, and additionally the complete restriction on the idea and vehicle of that creation, Debt and Loan Only, would be balanced by Gifting as well.

Dave, I think the idea of integrating employment with more leisure is an excellent one. Number one, combined with monetary Gifting it would enable more rapid change in the economy and economic theory and number two it simultaneously begins a positive and constructive acculturation of leisure which is not idleness, but self determined and directed purposeful activity. Perhaps we could also have an integrated effort by government, the helping professions and the clergy in making individuals aware of the multitude of positive, constructive and satisfying purposes available to them in addition to employment.

I think we should embrace the financial and economic effects of innovation and AI. Technology has been trying to lift the so called “curse of Adam” for centuries, and embracing that fact along with monetary Gifting could enable not only resource efficiencies but actual resource reductions. And even though with Gifting I’m sure we would see an increase in consumption at first (the reality even in advanced economies is relative austerity for a large majority) rather quickly I think we’d see a balancing there, especially if we are smart and comprehensively emphasized man as homo sapiens sapiens, wise and discerning man as opposed to homo economicus.