Costs are not accurately assessed and factored into present economic theory, and because all costs must go into price the reasons for inflated costs is also missed and/or mis-assessed. Depreciation is one of the primary costs which are missed/mis-assessed. Depreciation allowances for businesses somewhat mitigate the problem of the additional costs of depreciation, but it does nothing for the individual who, regardless, must pay for those additional costs and neither is the macro-economy stable with such a fundamental imbalance.

The economic system itself has no mind with which to consciously handle the unbalancing realities it inherently creates. Thus general equilibrium theory is false doctrine. Thus action, gracious and yet dynamically effective and powerful action is required for economic balance and stability.

Time is actually only the experience of the present moment, and clock time is the passage of each new moment without full consciousness of each moment. An aspect of full self awareness is the experience of time as the moment. Whatever are the moment to moment problematic realities of the economic system, which is completely embedded in the moment and by itself is unable to change those realities, must be understood by policy makers and addressed and resolved by them with policies that directly fix them both as they are in the moment and also in each subsequent moment. Conscious economics is what is required.

continued

Grace is the highest ethical integration. Another aspect of Grace itself is action, and as action can only exist within and through time and with time there will inevitably be change this means that Grace is a dynamic flow of action through time that positively integrates change in the highest possible way.

The entire modern world is sick and tired of being sick and tired of all of the mentally fragmented, obsessive contention and lack of progress toward any solution of almost any problem. And yet, most intellectuals and their pundits will deride any mention of policies based on a concept like Grace, the essence of whose meaning and the effect of whose philosophically aligned policies are an ethically elevated integration of the truths in opposites, inner and outer balance, equilibrium and flow and the progress of such through time. Go figure?

The Martians must be rolling on the floor in uproarious laughter.

Applied economically this translates into the fact of a direct monetary gifting vehicle like a universal dividend being simultaneously able to increase individual aggregate demand without adding a cost to the system.  Likewise a discount to prices at retail to consumers where costs for any item or service are terminally summed, and reciprocally back to participating merchants  after the entire productive process itself ends, enables not only a systemic/macro-economic effect to prices but nullifies any possibility of injury to any economic agent as production has become consumption.

Grace is a traditionally religious simultaneous  unity of body, mind and spirit with God and/or with all aspects of oneself, and the concept of Grace applied economically and monetarily is direct, simultaneous, immediate and conclusive policy effect at all points of time (dividend) and the particular points of time (retail sale) where such policy can be applied with maximum effect (a general discount to prices).

Don’t ever let any religionist tell you that Grace is only transcendant….and don’t ever let any modernly habituated, overly scientistic types tell you that it is irrelevant.

This is because Grace is also the complete objectivity about and freedom from bias. It is concern for only the truthfulness, work-ability and applicabilitiy of factors in any given situation/condition.

Conscious Being:  Pricing policy at retail doesn’t work in a market economy. For it to wok, production must be owned by the state. In a market economy, if the retail price of essentials is considered too high for people to afford them, state can either subsidise their production or ration them at affordable prices.

Me:  If that pricing policy is intrusive, punitive and only micro-economic instead of gracious, rewarding and macro-economic….then it will not work. That’s true. However, if merchants are allowed to find their best competitive price first and then a general discount of say 30% is macro-economically declared as policy to every product and service ….and then a monetary authority rebates all of those discounts back to participating merchants….it will work….plus it will eliminate inflation while effectively integrating deflation into profit making systems, help to downsize the business model of Finance whose completely unethical monetary domination of every other business model and 94-95% of the individuals in modern economies and which even the best economists curiously seem to miss or avoid considering and finally help to also eliminate the chronic scarcity and erosion of purchasing power that plagues capital intensive systems.

Owen Wall:   I understand this is what your suggestion is doing. You are saying that a monetary authority should print sovereign money to reduce the price of goods and services, effectively supplementing people’s incomes with newly minted money. But this does exactly the same thing as just mailing citizens checks, only with added regulatory inefficiencies. You’re wrong that it would in any way halt inflation. It would increase the money supply in exactly the same way that mailing people checks would. But this isn’t a bad thing. The libertarian myth that inflation is bad and deflation is good is just that – a myth. Employees like getting raises, and hate getting pay cuts. Some small amount of inflation is good. The critical change that needs to be made is only to accomplish this increase in the money supply that creates this small amount of inflation through direct cash injections into the consumer economy, rather than through creation of debt which creates unsustainable trends. And the simplest way to do this is by mailing checks, not by implementing some burdensome regulatory scheme.

Me:  @Owen Wall The dual policies of a universal dividend and a macro-economic discount to prices at retail sale are necessary. Innovation and AI are going to reduce aggregate demand 10X faster than it has ever reduced such before if you can believe the most knowledgeable futurists. The sufficient dividend resolves this problem. Libertarians have orthodoxy problems with general equilibrium, but they are correct that free economic agents will raise their prices if they see a steady supply of demand. It is mistaken liberal orthodoxy that this will not occur. There is false orthodoxy lying around all over the place actually. The retail discount mechanism resolves this problem and enables the integration of the self interests of both individuals and businesses with price deflation and again, resolves modern economic systems’ problems of scarcity of aggregate demand and inflation. How are you going to have price inflation even if merchants increase their prices by 2-3%/yr…..when you’re reducing them 30%/month?

As for a retail discount being “some burdensome regulatory scheme”, it is instead freeing of both the individual from monetary scarcity and the system from austerity, and has a simultaneously pinpointed micro-economic effect and general macro-economic application. It is supremely integrative of apparently opposing ideas and structures. Integration and resolution of opposites are also aspects of the new economic and monetary paradigm.

Conscious Being:  What you are talking about is subsidizing essential items, not a pricing policy. Yes, it can be done, but is the job of the fiscal authority i.e. the government, not the monetary authority i.e. the Central Bank. Same result is achieved through a Basic Income Scheme as well and there are many who are talking about Basic Income Schemes.

Me:  It is the responsibility of both the political and monetary systems to implement…and awaken to. Direct distribution is an aspect of the new economic and monetary paradigm.

Owen Wall:  Your “most knowledgeable futurists” do not understand economics. There is no reason economic growth and demand growth cannot continue. You only have to maintain a steady increase in the money supply (properly, MS*MV, but MS is the variable policy can affect). Automating companies will compete and reduce prices such that consumers have more money with which to demand services, which they will be employed in providing and which will maintain economic growth. Also, please explain how mailing people checks and mailing companies checks to discount prices doesn’t do exactly the same thing, except that in one case you don’t impose a regulatory burden on companies whereas in the other you do.

Me:  “There is no reason economic growth and demand growth cannot continue. ” Without “a modern debt jubilee” and then the policies I outlined…I respectfully disagree. If the internal logics of profit making systems, innovation and AI are all efficiency (profit-efficiency of cost, primarily labor costs, technological innovation-efficiency of human effort and increasingly disruptively AI-efficiency of human input at all) which one of those are you going to eliminate? Merely increasing the money supply by some inaccurate and easily gamed smallish percentage will never be adequate especially as the aggregate demand diminishing effects of AI increasingly kick in. The velocity of money is almost entirely just another orthodoxy which needs to be more closely looked at. In the first place the classical illustration of its effects where various merchants run around and use business revenue as if it were individual income ignores the costing/pricing system inherent in commerce that must be obeyed or a business will never survive because it won’t have the revenue to pay its vendors etc. (On a local and small scale level this undoubtedly occurs all the time and “off the books” simply as a business and individual survival tactic. Why? Because the inherent scarcity of demand is such an obvious and continual reality….a reality that orthodoxy prone theorists, being abstracted from and hence at least once removed from actual reality….are missing) Increasingly, our technologically advanced and fixed capital intensive economies create more sunken costs than they simultaneously create in individual incomes. And as the cost accounting convention that all costs must go into prices this increasingly unbalanced macro-economic ratio of costs to incomes is enforced. And of course you not only have these inherent scarcity effects you also have all of the Keynesian diminutions of income from the circular flow as well as the costs of waste not actually being accurately accounted for. And yes, you can just keep on borrowing and borrowing but that just adds cost to an already inherently cost inflationary system and also further embeds the dominant entrenchment of Finance. Integrating direct monetary gifting to both the individual and to enterprise into the economic system is the only solution to this systemically cost inflationary and increasingly inevitable demand reducing tendency….and that also addresses the glaring problem of Finance’s almost complete monopolistic hold on the creation and kind of vehicle for the distribution of credit.

Owen Wall:  You didn’t answer my question about how gifting money to individuals and gifting money to businesses has any different effect whatsoever. I agree you need this to offset the tendency that exists otherwise for the incomes of consumers to decline relative to costs, such that they are forced to take on more and more debt to maintain aggregate demand. This tendency exists, but it does not in the long run have anything to do with technological advance. A hundred years ago farming technology put half the world out of work, and there were people who suffered in the transition, and yet they found new things to do after some time. People will find employment in various services, and (assuming adequate regulation) competition will force prices down for advanced manufacturers such that they aren’t able to realize excessive rents. The only thing you need policy to counter is the tendency for for the money supply to increase through unsustainable credit creation. This policy must directly inject new money into the consumer economy. Now, if you please, explain how there is any functional difference between injecting that cash through checks to businesses vs. checks to every citizen. You did not answer this question at all in your last post.

Me:  Injecting money to businesses re-initiates the cost inflationary inherency of the costing/pricing mechanism present in every enterprise in commerce which due to increasing costs of depreciation, waste and numerous other factors creates more costs as a flow than it simultaneously creates in individual incomes. Gifting individuals directly does not incur a systemic cost. Just as an arbitrary example and model: If there is a scarcity of -5 of individual incomes and you gift +5 the result is 0 or an equilibrium….for a moment. If you gift +5 in individual incomes and say -5 in prices you’ll have an actual free flowing reversal of the problematic ratio where there are more aggregate individual incomes than there are aggregate costs AND creates a price deflationary vector for the entire economy which yet remains beneficial to both individuals and enterprise as previously explain. This is what I refer to as “the higher disequilibrium”. And again, this also will tend to downsize the market for finance for both individuals and enterprise and so de-throne and de-tooth it so that it can take its smaller and correct place ALONGSIDE as opposed to domineeringly and manipulatively on top of every other business model.

Owen Wall:  You still aren’t answering hte question… what is the difference between doing +5/-5 and doing +10/-0? Compare apples to apples please. The result is the same in both situations. The money supply grows, prices go down relative to incomes, and aggregate demand is sufficient to grow the economy.

Me:  Well yes I did answer the question, but to answer it even more comprehensively the best reason why it works is because if you just do the Keynesian stimulus you only palliate the inherent systemic problem instead of actually solving it. The system left entirely to itself is INHERENTLY cost inflationary because it creates less individual incomes than it does costs and so prices. Hence policies need to be direct to the problems and costless (the universal dividend) and immediately and conclusively cost reducing in their effect (the discount mechanism at retail sale)….otherwise you re-initiate the inherent condition.

Owen Hall:  You said that +5/-0 was different from +5/-5… duh… You’re also saying that incomes going down relative to prices is inflationary… this is 100% backwards. Sorry to break it to you, but you’re talking out of your ass. I don’t know whose nonsense you’re repeating, but it’s nonsense. Sorry I wasted both our time taking you seriously.

Me:  Not correct. I said that macro-economically a +5 of individual income makes an INHERENT -5 of income a 0….and that along with the +5 of individual incomes a -5 of prices would reverse/invert the former INHERENT income and price ratio. You’re missing the inherent condition apparently. And please back off with the ad hominem. It’s generally a sure sign of offended orthodoxy and doesn’t add to the discussion.

Consciousness itself contains all of the aspects, characteristics and experiences of Grace including the continual reflectiveness of awareness of those states as they occur in the present moment.

The forgetting of self awareness is the first, the last and the continuing sin, and the quality and skill of simultaneous extroversion of this reflective, introverted aspect of consciousness is the unique quality that all humans share.

Bringing full inner/knowing and outer/action consciousness to one’s every endeavor is the state of Grace referred to by every sage down through time. Grace is the fully conscious, enlightened life, and bringing every aspect of Grace as policy to the various systems of our world is the way out of our present discontents and the way home to a world of incredible and beautiful potential.

Contemplate Grace.

Now that doesn’t mean a soft mindedness toward error or evil itself, but it means a rational response to degree of “outness of thinking or action”. Grace includes within its inner reality complete rationality plus understanding which manifests as patience and granting of beingness to oneself and to others. Grace is continual integration of such opposites which results in the thirdness and oneness of such understanding. This is personal power. This is personal freedom. This is free flowingness.

John,

You’re quite right that Douglas’ analysis was micro-economic and that his analysis is what lead to his macro-economic conclusion of A + B which was a beautiful example of integrative thought that probably no economist has equaled since,….but that doesn’t really have anything to do with a misunderstanding about the macro-economic/aggregate/general NATURE of the discount mechanism. You saying that reformers in New Zealand have debated/examined the discount for years and found it too complex tells me that they all have the same misunderstanding of its nature as you do. It. IS. NOT. COMPLEX. What is complex is the fragmented nature of the modern mind habituated to ONLY the dualistic/objective scientific mindset, and/or forces who have a conscious agenda to maintain their own position of power claiming complexity where it doesn’t exist, and many others who have unconsciously swallowed that line of thinking.

Wisdom, the integrative mindset and ethic, is the remedy to this, and Grace being the pinnacle natural/personal/psychological experience of Wisdom is the unifying concept that the modern mind must become aware of….in order to resolve all of the conflict, domination, converging crises and irrational counter intention that swirls around us now.

Is this “heifer dust” or some “airy fairy” irrelevance? What bull shit! Wisdom is the observation and integration of inner and outer truths and policies aligned with those conclusions (actually looked at as opposed to relating to a subject or situation via some prior and usually non-integrated and so half truthful orthodoxy). Hence Wisdom by definition cannot be an incomplete analysis and so cannot be irrelevant.

Let me give you an historical example of non-integrative thinking misinterpreting Wisdom. Hegel was wise. His dialectic was the essence of integrative logic itself. Modern, non-integrative, merely scientific and hence by definition Dumb sons of bitches like Marx, Engles, Lenin etc. et al (and their various dunces on the right who were of course quick to non-integratively and violently oppose them) came along and made Hegel’s wisdom dialectical materialism. That errant arrogant obsessively dualistic stupidity, failure to integrate science with spirituality and so accomplish the thirdness of a synthesis was responsible for probably hundreds of millions of deaths not to mention no actual progress.

The world cries out for and requires Wisdom and its pinnacle result Grace. Understanding Grace threads the needle every time. Why? Because it includes, encompasses and integrates both dualism and thirdness-unity. Understanding Grace is understanding the Cosmic Code, namely an integrated Duality within an integrative Trinity-Unity. If you’re an agnostic or atheist ignore the religionists who are happy to talk about God’s Grace forever and a day while continually falling back into opposing and intolerant Duality in the process. If you’re a Christian, Buddhist, or whatever ignore the scientistic who are happy to commit the same error. Just clear the definition of integration in your mind and keep integrating. Sooner or later you’ll integrate whatever is hanging you up mentally and you’ll experience the unitary state known as Grace. Beliefs are “filthy rags”. Experience is everything.