The comment makes several leaps to conclusions, that I honestly do not belive to be logical or accurate, none the less, I will try and respond.

TPM is not written as a popular rallying battle cry or branding slogan. TPM is written to provide a road map to Congress and the Administration for a new Monetary Policy based on a proven financial paradgim. The only popularity contest TPM seeks to win is the full support of the White House, and a majority in both Houses. TPM is not trying to become a household name or brand, in fact, if the proposals get enacted, we don’t seek any credit nor acknowledgment. (By the way, I believe some of our best Economists share this humility and/or desire to be of some service without personal gain or profit!). The purpose is to get the economy back into forward gear and provide for a healthier progressive tomorrow.

TPM would fund (entirely - not just partially) a full Code Green Economy as defined by Thomas Friedman in his brilliant book, “Hot, Flat, and Crowded”. The definition of the right job is not on how the wages from that job are spent, but rather what kind of future that job is building.

While we disagree about the purpose and function of marketing and advertising, in any case, TPM is not going to undertake the marketing approach suggested.

That said, we appreciate the time and effort in your comments.

This statement comes from the blog of the Prosperity Mandate, and I believe it reveals a great deal about both the Mandate and its challenges. Essentially, what the statement says is that the TPM financial system is confusing: It sounds complex, and indeed convoluted, requiring technical, specialized language, which in turn requires technical specialists, which in turn creates special interests. Bear in mind that if people believe economists know what they are doing, they will expect economists to be both rich and disinclined to share their knowledge. Consequently, by the time nonspecialists finish reading the sentence, they may feel bored, intimidated, and perhaps even disempowered. That’s not to say its a bad idea or that it won’t work, but it doesn’t sound like a fun cartoon to watch, does it?

I’m serious - the success of the Prosperity Mandate depends upon its ability (and willingness) to forgo its agenda and - rather than stressing what’s being offered - aligning with the vast pool of the potentially interested. Successful marketing does not emphasize what’s being sold, but who’s buying. Make a connection with what people want to hear, with what people want to read, with what people want to learn, and with how people want to help, emphasize the necessity of their input, and we create the solution ourselves.

As an example, why not promote a debtor’s union? Since - statistically speaking, at least - every man, woman, and child in the U.S. is a debtor, why not get organized, that we have some negotiating power? Rather than an esoteric economic plan that fails to captivate, perhaps this angle would rally a crowd around a cause, ultimately endorsing a plan they learn about slowly.

For that matter, can we really call the creation of meaningless jobs economic stimulus? We need to reward results, not just employed martyrs. Specifically: More jobs that pay wages spent on nonrenewable, fuel subsidized, mass-produced, imported consumables does not solve the economic problem. The American economy is a consequence of the American ecology: there is no wealth without natural resources. We cannot successfully build economic infrastructure without rehabilitating ecological infrastructure. Green jobs does not mean a factory with less emissions, a car with better mileage, or a shirt made from organic cotton. Green jobs means ecological rehabilitation. We must invest in the ecology; all other investment alternatives lead to dead ends.

The Prosperity Mandate offers a financial solution to the economic crisis, but to work, it must offer more. It must offer the people what we want, and it must offer it in a manner that has unbelievable appeal. The art of selling is the practice of serving others - it has nothing to do with what we want to offer the world, and everything to do with what the world wants from us. To succeed, we must prioritize meeting the needs of others, and deprioritize fulfilling our own. This is known as bending in order not to break, or the strategy of adaptation.
Thank you for reading, I would enjoy hearing your response