Me: Gold will never work because it does not address the cost inflationary nature of technologically advanced commerce enforced by the flaw in cost accounting conventions (that is all costs must go into price even though the rate of flow of total costs exceeds the rate of flow of total individual incomes, i.e. cost inflation) and then exploited by the financial monopoly that does not/will not brook balancing competition for the creation of money as a gift.
I can certainly understand the frustration with the long term unstable history of the economy, but any strategy involving Gold is just another incomplete non-confront of the above reality no more stable than DSGE theory, Keynesian stimulus or Austrian economics.
icj240: “the long term unstable history of the economy”?
Yeah I guess that all human economic history, which has always been unstable, could be termed “long term”.
Austrian economic theory holds that economics should be unstable (creative destruction), so yeah, not stable.
Me: Equilibrium must be the goal or domination/manipulation by Finance is inevitable. In the temporal universe virtual equilibrium is the only equilibrium actually attainable. That does not invalidate the empirically verifiable fact of the cost inflationary nature of commerce/the economy missed/denied by every major economic theory except Social Credit, nor does it change the necessity of confronting and handling that reality with a new idea/paradigm of Gifting which is the only idea powerful enough to counter the monopolistic paradigm of Debt. Gifting is powerful enough because like debt its effects are both immediate and continuing when administered in the dual forms of a universal dividend and a discount to retail prices, and also, because it is costless, it is the only economically valid policy for both the micro and macro economies.
Billy Bonobo: A shiny metal we dig out of the ground, or the debt of children is the best we can do for money in this era of exponential growth of knowledge?
Me: So true Billy. We must transcend work for pay as the only economic ethic and employment as the only economic solution to our economic problems, and replace them with an ethic of Wisdom and its pinnacle concept/personal natural experience, that is, Grace, whose policy qualities would be and are synonymous with the correct and stated goals of economic policy, namely balance, equilibrium and flow.
Ironically the new economic philosophy and the new Powell memo must be an evolution of Keynesianism that is actually a return to the insights of Clifford Hugh Douglas, a contemporary of Keynes who espoused the (correctable) disequilibrium of the economy and the relevance of money and Debt with a new paradigm of monetary grace/gifting.
daddysteve: Yes! On to the next level of financial engineering…because we’re more evolved. It will be different this time.
Me: Cynicism is irrelevant, and if the idea/paradigm and its aligned policies are economically valid and the solutions to the actual, deepest and most urgently pressing problem, which they are…then it is irrational to resist them.
In response to a decent post by Crysangle: Crysangle,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Social Credit is a Distributist economic theory, not re-distributive. A social credit is an additional creation of credit/individual income, not a re-distribution of existing monies. Thus it is NOT socialist. I have challenged posters here for almost 8 years to show me how Social Credit re-distributes anyone’s income….and no one here has ever taken that challenge up or offered any evidence (except in their own minds) that it does so. And the reason for that is simply that it doesn’t. This is not directed at you personally, but it is an indication of just how filtered and captured the capitalist bias and mindset here is.
I have also stated that Social Credit fits seamlessly within profit making systems and this is also true. Businesses will still go bankrupt despite social credit’s monetary mechanisms, they won’t change that at all. All social credit wants to do is enable the system to actually be able to be stable…and guarantee the individual economic freedom within a profit making system. There is absolutely no necessary conflict between those goals and a profit making system, and in fact in view of technology and AI’s disruptive effects guaranteeing the individual economic freedom is enlightened.
I used to be a left leaning progressive. I no longer am. In many ways my politics are much like the Pauls and their libertarian philosophy, but I have realized that both the strict capitalist and socialist viewpoints are both flawed and incomplete and that social credit is the perfect integration of the truths and strengths in each of capitalism and socialism…and none of the untruths and weaknesses that one must accept if they are going to chose either one. In fact if social credit ever becomes a reality it will probably be the socialists that will oppose it more so than the capitalists. This is what occurred in Douglas’s time with the Fabian Socialists who attacked Douglas more vehemently than the capitalists ever thought of doing. If there is anyone more obsessed with power and control than capitalists…it is socialists.
The who of social credit is both the individual and the business entity. They are natural allies in that via the dividend mechanism of social credit the individual having always available purchasing power is in the interests of any business, and the discount mechanism eliminating inflation is of course in the interests of both individuals and businesses. Social credit will make competition more actual. There will still be winners and losers, it’s just that the system will not be nearly as onerous and actually non-functional…as it is now. Social Credit will eliminate the dominating nature of the forever problematic business model of Finance and force it/them to take their normal and balanced place in the economy along with other traditionally productive business models.
Social Credit’s policy mechanisms by their being the anatomy of economic equilibrium (adjusting incomes and prices so as to make them equal in a non-intrusive, non-dominating and non-manipulative fashion that is actually in the interests of both businesses and the individual) ARE freedom itself and so by definition cannot be tyranny. The administration of freedom is still freedom. The idea that government MUST be tyrannical is irrational. If it administers freedom….it is freedom. A = A.
Response to an agreement about the “Gap”
Me: John,
Yes that describes the money circulation/diminution of money aspect of Social Credit’s A + B theorem problem perfectly. And yes it is a very subtle, almost like a sleight of hand process. And there are actually other diminution aspects to the money supply like business profit, individual savings (Georgist rent is an aspect of these) which for as long as they are withheld from the moment to moment circular flow of the economy add to the gap as well.
And then there is the excess costs aspect of A + B for instance: a business borrows $1 million to start up. Even if all of that money finds its way back into the pockets of individuals and then also back into the economy (which it doesn’t of course because of the way the money system is and the other things mentioned above) the business actually needs to replace its capital equipment and if that expense is say 10% of that initial financial outlay that means that the business must get 110% of that initial outlay…just to break even and not make a cent of profit. Now considering that the cost accounting rule that ALL costs must go into price is correctly enforced and that all costs will hence be charged to the consumer because as the libertarians like to remind us, “There ain’t no free lunch!”, that means that as a rate of flow total costs/prices will always tend to exceed the rate of flow of total individual incomes actually in the hands of individuals and so available to spend.
So if there is a 10% loss of money to the system from extinguishment of principle, a 10% profit, savings and financialization removal of money from the circular flow of the economy, a 10% depreciation addition to costs for the replacement of capital equipment, a 10% diminution of aggregate demand from outsourcing, globalization, innovation and artificial intelligence, that gives you a 40% “Gap” …..and that isn’t even counting the monetary (and ecological) costs of waste that also widen the gap between spendable incomes and costs/prices. …..but we don’t need a supplement to individual incomes and a discount to retail prices! 🙂
In response to Steven Lesh on Ellen Brown’s forum:
One of the major aspects of the idea/experience of Grace (whether considered natural or supernatural, it matters not when you realize that either way it is an actual experience that is not diminished whatever your considerations about its origin)….is balance. The combination of resource efficiency from increased technology and an ethic of Grace as in the balance of enoughness both inwardly and outwardly, in thought and action….very much aligns with the concept of ecology. When you are relaxed and not continually stressed by an unworkable, enslaving system of money and commerce, which itself is balanced by monetary grace the free gift, the balance of rationality will manifest itself much more evidently in the vast majority of us.
Contemplate the aspects of Grace….and follow through on them policy wise and you can’t go wrong…because its what both we and the cosmos most deeply ACTUALLY are….if we will only align ourselves and our actions with it. Throw in the balanced/balancing consideration that “we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the Good” …..and the balance just keeps on rolling, moment to moment.
Adrian Kuzminski: “The first thing producers will do when faced with an upsurge in demand is to raise prices, which is virtually effortless.”
Me: Precisely why a rebated (to merchants) retail discount is the answer to such price inflation for the consumer. And of course if producers and wholesalers raise their prices just to be raising them…their competition will be happy to take their market share…so competition is ensured and reinforced by such a gracious and proactive win-win business/economic policy.
Adrian Kuzminski: “I’m not sure what a rebated discount to merchants is,…”
Me: It is a discount to consumers which negates any inflation and a rebate of those discounts…back to the discounting merchants. So it’s BOTH a graciously free way to discount their prices and yet get back every cent, AND a free gift to consumers as well. Finally, continually having adequate and freeing purchasing power in the hands of consumers via the dividend will translate into increased profit for businesses which will tend to do what? …that’s right, reduce both the business’s and the individual’s needs for borrowing, so it has a downsizing effect on the Banks’ market for consumer finance which is upwards of 70% of GDP. So the dividend and discount integrate and synergize each other while solving all of the right problems and bringing the blessing of abundance and flow to the economy.
Remember balance, equilibrium and flow are not only the stated goals of economic theory and policy….they are also exactly the primary aspects of the concept of Grace. This is neither coincidence nor high mindedness. It is relevance and fact.
In response to smackmacdougle on Mish:
smackmacdougle:” As Grace is the human psychological pinnacle and epitome of Wisdom and Wisdom is synonymous with both the best possible thinking AND acting… “ ~ Duality Within Trinity
Grace? Grace came into English in the late 1100s. It means God’s unmerited favor, love, or help”.
Thus, grace can’t be “human psychological pinnacle”.
Try love. Love is the pinnacle.
Good luck!
Me: Grace, being the pinnacle of Wisdom which again is BOTH the best philosophy/thinking AND policy/action IS Love….IN ACTION. And of course that is why it is also the epitome of relevance…due to its universal and complete applicability…inwardly and outwardly.
smackmacdougle: By definition, men can’t make grace. Men can love.
Me: Smallish concept. Not in any way consistent with Grace as in abundant/abundance and creation/creativity.
smackmacdougle: Words don’t get alternative meanings merely because you don’t like the established meanings.
Likely, you mean mercy or forgiveness when weighing all of your comments championing C.H. Douglas.
Mercy goes both ways. Did you ever consider that borrowers ought to have mercy for their lenders?
It’s all too easy to cry for mercy. It takes one with manhood to give it.
Me: Nonsensical non-confront of obvious dominance of Finance/Debt both as a structural entity and monopolistic idea and paradigm.
You always lay yourself open to such utter refutation…because of your refusal to acknowledge the expansive mindset and truthfulness of Wisdom, actual millennially acknowledged Wisdom.
smackmacdougle: Writing as many words with more than one syllable convinces no one. Your writing little more gibberish.
You should try loving instead.
Me: Rich, very rich.
The poster smackmacdougle covertly elaborated on a post further up the thread. This is his amended post and my reply:
smackmacdougle: By definition, men can’t manifest grace. Men aren’t gods.
Men can love. Men can love God — God’s grace, the universe, whatever you want to call it, the manifestation from the law of cause to effect.
And men can love others, their neighbors as they would want to be loved. And who are their neighbors? Anyone who would show kindness to you.
So in this way, men can mimic God by loving others.
Me: I see you extended your post. Nice try. However, the word “loving” is a verb denoting action as in Grace is love in action. Thank you for reinforcing my point.
And also, the word “mimic” is not an entirely accurate usage, and could possibly betray a cynical and effected attitude toward mankind…which I remind you, you are a member of.
smackmacdougle: Meanwhile the comment to which you are replying is 12 hours old as of this comment. Your comment in reply is only nine minutes old.
I knew you would come around and agree with me. It feels good to be sensible at long last, doesn’t it?
Me: I’m afraid you have cause and effect, chronology and authorship mixed up. Nice try again.
smackmacdougle: Cause: I commented. My words triggered you to act, in effect, controlling your mind.
Effect: In controlled manner, you replied.
Cause: I pointed out your errors of English, which reflected your misunderstanding of theology and metaphysics.
Effect: In a controlled manner, you replied.
Unfortunately, you continue to try to sully others with ad hominem through innuendo to cover for your argumentative deficiencies.
Isn’t it time you go to the alter of C. H. Douglas for a bit of prayer and worship of him and his many fallacies?
Me: Nice try, but not chronologically accurate or correct in assessment. You like to be cause just a liiiiitle too much. Generally, I’m happy and free to be consciously cause or effect. You definitely have intellect…just don’t resist or invalidate Wisdom so much and it will turn out alright for you. Done….until another time.
Social Credit/Wisdomics/Gracenomics/ Gracientialism 