The Question of Risk

Thanks to the current tsunami of chaos in the political, social, economic, and everything else realms, we haven’t garnered too many outraged comments or questions about how risky the Economic Democracy Act is for workers and others.  Instead, what we’re getting are honest questions about how risk — which is always a factor to be considered — will be handled.

Economic Doubletalk, III: The Monetary and Credit Critiques

In our previous posting on this subject, we looked at the theoretical complaints of economists the AI engine “Claude” gave to explain why economists reject Louis Kelso’s Binary Economics.  While there was some validity to the theoretical complaints, they were fairly easy to deal with once we identified the differences in assumptions between Kelso’s Binary Economics and mainstream economics.  There was quite a bit of confusion, but that is only to be expected because many of the critics don’t really know too much about Binary Economics . . . and some of them aren’t too clear on their own paradigm, either.

Economic Doubletalk, II: The Theoretical Critiques

In our last exciting episode, we looked at a list of reasons the AI engine “Claude” gave to explain why economists reject Louis Kelso’s Binary Economics.  We didn’t think the critiques were very good (or we wouldn’t be writing this blog, obviously) and they are very easily refuted.  This week we take the first group on the list, the “Theoretical Critiques”:

Economic Doubletalk, I: The Question

Recently a CESJ stalwart decided to ask “Claude” a question.  Actually, this particular individual has been asking Claude a lot of questions, but the answer to this particular question was one we could use to create a blog posting without first having to think what to write about.

That Krazy Keynesian Math I, Prevarication and Productiveness

 To some people, economics is not merely the dismal science (thanks to the Reverend Thomas Malthus), but also the incomprehensible science . . . with increasing numbers of potential and former votaries insisting it is no longer a science, if it ever was.  Of course, followers of Keynes who always knew the Master’s economics were a religion and not a science remain solidly entrenched in their faith . . . despite the lack of a solid moral or even rational foundation.

Inflation Indexing and the EDA

    An article in last week’s Yahoo! Finance, “Inflation slowed in January as consumer prices rise 2.4% over prior year to start 2026,” noted the rate of inflation had, well, slowed in January.  Of course, there is the small issue that there are at least two different kinds of inflation, cost-push and demand-pull.

Kelso v. Keynes on Money

As we saw in the previous posting on this subject, many people seem to confuse God and money, as well as religion and finance.  This, in the modern age suffused with what people like Mortimer J. Adler have delicately referred to as “philosophical mistakes,” is a disaster, whether the result of Belloc’s purported accusation of “knavish imbecility,” unthinking self-interest, or deliberate and considered villainy.

Do You Grok Kelso’s “Second Income Plan”?

 It’s a bit of cultural trivia from Robert Heinlein’s 1961 science fiction novel, Stranger in a Strange Land (it’s a Biblical reference), a with-it neologism that never really caught on, but had a certain vogue into the seventies among geeks and others (like us) grouped among the quasi-normal: “grok.”

The Blind Leading the Blinder

We may have mentioned one or two dozen (or hundred) times how much we like it when people ask us questions we can answer and then use as a posting on this blog.  What we like even better is when someone takes the bull between the teeth or the bit by the horns and writes the entire blog posting for us, with only a little bit of editing and formatting to make it fit our needs.

Why Economists Reject Binary Economics, VI: “Limited Academic Influence and Institutional Support”

 After a brief hiatus, we are returning to our series on “Why Economists Reject Binary Economics.”  Unfortunately, the reasons the so-called experts refuse to give Binary Economics consideration do not improve with age.  Binary Economics, however, continues to advance and refine its theories and applications and ages like wine, while so-called “mainstream economics” (i.e., Keynesian, Monetarist, and Austrian) continues to degenerate and ages like milk. 

Why Economists Reject Binary Economics, V: “Perceived Policy Risks and Inflation Concerns”

The four previous postings on this subject — why so-called mainstream economists reject Binary Economics — we have looked at 1) Lack of Empirical and Econometric Support, 2) Heterodox and Non-Conventional Framework, 3) Criticism of Core Concepts, Particularly “Productiveness”, and 4) Negative Reception by Prominent Economists.  This last, the “negative reception” by prominent economists, is possibly the weakest reason given.

Why Economists Reject Binary Economics, IV: “Negative Reception”

 In the three previous postings on this subject, we have been examining (as the title of this posting suggests) why mainstream economists reject Binary Economics.  So far, we have looked at 1) Lack of Empirical and Econometric Support, 2) Heterodox and Non-Conventional Framework, and 3) Criticism of Core Concepts, Particularly “Productiveness”.  Today we look at perhaps the weakest reason, even though some in the modern world give it the greatest weight: Negative Reception by Prominent Economists: the “Non amo te, Sabidi” (“I do not like thee, Doctor Fell”) syndrome:

Why Economists Reject Binary Economics, III: “Particularly ‘Productiveness’”

 One of the many things conventional mainstream economists find annoying (i.e., incomprehensible) about Binary Economics is the idea of “productiveness.”  In Binary Economics, productiveness is not a synonym for productivity.  It is, rather, an acknowledgement that there is more than one factor of production and that each makes a definable and independent (although not autonomous when the factors are combined) contribution to production.

Why Economists Reject Binary Economics, II: Heterodox and Non-Conventional

 As John Maynard Keynes famously declared in the conclusion of his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (which is not general or much of a theory, and — being obsessed with the Fabian socialist doctrine of “full employment” — has little to do with the real meaning of interest and money),

Why Economists Reject Binary Economics, I: Lack of Empirical Evidence

Just for fun the other day, we asked AI why mainstream economists reject Binary Economics, and it came up with nine reasons, some of which are not so good, and others which are terrible.  In this series we will look at the reasons and see if there are any responses, or if the reason is even valid.

Why “Binary”?

Occasionally, someone thinks he (or she) has come up with a brilliant criticism of the Just Third Way of Economic Personalism by pointing out “binary economics” is not a good way of describing the ideas of Louis O. Kelso which form the primary economic theory of the Just Third Way.  The critic takes a brief look and sees Kelso divided the factors of production into labor and capital instead of labor, land, and capital, and assumes it is the whole of Kelso’s thought, which is ultra-simplistic.

The Framework of Economic Justice: The Input Principle

Today’s blog posting is a selection from the book, Economic Personalism, which you can get free from the CESJ website, or from Amazon or Barnes and Noble.

Why Binary Economics?

Today’s blog posting is a selection from the book, Economic Personalism, which you can get free from the CESJ website, or from Amazon or Barnes and Noble.

In all forms of tyranny, the State or community dictates what people must do and how they must do it instead of maintaining the pólis so that people can pursue their own destinies within established parameters as they themselves see fit. When most people lack private property in capital and thus lack power, however, they often have no choice but to comply with the wishes of those who do have property, whether they are a private sector capitalist élite or a socialist bureaucracy.

What is the “Banking Principle”?

Frequently, we have made the statement that, where the so-called mainstream schools of economics (the Keynesian, Monetarist/Chicago, and the Austrian) are based on the “Currency Principle” and belong to the “Currency School,” the binary economic of Louis Kelso is based on the “Banking Principle” and belongs to the “Banking School.”  What does this mean?

The Currency Principle

Nowhere is the pervasiveness of the “New Things” (rei novae) of modernism, socialism, and the New Age more obvious today than in the prevalence of Keynesian economic and monetary policies throughout the world.