Page 1 of 1
Why politicians dare not limit economic growth
Posted: 12 Nov 2008, 07:46
by Aurora
New Scientist - 15/10/08
Scratch the surface of free-market capitalism and you discover something close to visceral fear. Recent events provide a good example: the US treasury's extraordinary $800 billion rescue package was an enormous comfort blanket designed to restore confidence in the ailing financial markets. By forcing the taxpayer to pick up the "toxic debts" that plunged the system into crisis, it aims to protect our ability to go on behaving similarly in the future. This is a short-term and deeply regressive solution, but economic growth must be protected at all costs.
Article continues ...
Posted: 12 Nov 2008, 13:05
by RenewableCandy
I think that's from the one where there was a whole issue of NS devoted to the question of "growth". Lots of other interesting stuff in the same issue...
Posted: 29 Nov 2008, 11:17
by ziggy12345
I reduce the model down to a basic level. Money is just a method of communicating energy. Therefore the stock markets rising can only happen if there is either an increasing use of energy or use the same energy more efficiently
If we have stagnant energy production then efficiency is the only way to move the market up.
On a downward slope the stock market and all global ecconomics becomes null and void. People still need to grow food and build shelters so another system needs to be put in place to support these activities. Take a look at Cuba to see how they do it.
Cheers
Posted: 13 May 2009, 16:05
by emordnilap
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MTBNTC.php
Interesting article, "More than banking needs to change."
I liked this snipe:
...blatantly ignoring the market, which even the most committed neo-liberals seem willing to do when it suits them.
Posted: 13 May 2009, 16:30
by SILVERHARP2
ziggy12345 wrote:I reduce the model down to a basic level. Money is just a method of communicating energy. Therefore the stock markets rising can only happen if there is either an increasing use of energy or use the same energy more efficiently
If we have stagnant energy production then efficiency is the only way to move the market up.
On a downward slope the stock market and all global ecconomics becomes null and void. People still need to grow food and build shelters so another system needs to be put in place to support these activities. Take a look at Cuba to see how they do it.
Cheers
I’ll disagree with that , natural money would fit your description of money where effectively money is just a method of record keeping and what is really happening is that time and resources are exchanged by economic agents , savings in this case is the grain in the store house etc. and claims on these are exchanged etc.
The stock market and asset prices do not reflect the “energy” in the system , your house doubling in value until recently is proof of that. And if we have a deflation now it will not be because someone is running down the power on your “train set”. It’s a simple mismatch between asset value and liabilities.
Posted: 13 May 2009, 16:44
by PS_RalphW
Maybe the simplest solution to the money problem is to declare an amnesty on all debt, and disallow any future charging of interest on lending. The lender could profit by taking a cut of the profits, if any.
Then the global money supply would be static. Money based pensions would fall to zero. As the world economy slowly contracted, then the fiat currencies would suffer inflation. At least the process would be gradual and avoid deflation.
Posted: 14 May 2009, 02:43
by kenneal - lagger
ziggy12345 wrote: People still need to grow food and build shelters so another system needs to be put in place to support these activities. Take a look at Cuba to see how they do it.
Cuba's food system may be good but the standard of their housing is awful and getting worse.
The Cubans have no money and, worse, no incentive to maintain their homes. You can buy a house in Cuba for $600 but, when you sell it, you must sell it back to the person you bought it from, the government. They will only give you your $600 back no matter what the condition. Result: no investment in maintenance and a literally crumbling housing stock.