Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I don't think what we have now is zero growth. I don't have a problem with growth in the economy.
Are all Climate crisis deniers conspiracy theorists?
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
Are you asking? I thought you knew. It seems to depend on who does the controlling and in what manner, but there is always a flip-side. In any case, we come right back to: "Does it help economic growth?"
In fact, a monetary policy that persistently attempts to keep short-term real rates low will lead eventually to higher inflation and higher nominal interest rates, with no permanent increases in the growth of output or decreases in unemployment.
Last edited:
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I wasn't asking. My point was that "crashes" being necessary to bring too high debt load down, wasn't the primary answer. The Fed manages the rate to the extent that it can. When there is over capacity you can't just force the rates to stay down without causing inflation, that's when the Fed raises rates.
There are repercussions involved in any economy system. Ours is messy but it seems to be better than any other that has come about so far. Our problems have less to do with changing the system than with better regulating the system or even more important than that (as you can also over regulate) is to just have a less "corrupt" system. Taking the "big" money out of politics indirectly fixes most everything that needs fixing.
You've made that assertion before. I'm not sure what other systems you're referring to. Where is the comparison chart?
How? The potential for corruption is built into the system.
It would sure help. But how do you take out the "big" money without taking out all money? (Which, of course, would be a huge improvement.)
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I'm open to the systems that you have better data for. To be clear, I'm speaking broadly of capitalism and not specifically of the U.S. "brand".
We will. Infinite growth is not sustainable. We can fix it, or you can just take personal profit and pass the problems on to your children. I prefer the former approach, since I have kids.
That's not what I asked. I asked what other systems have been tried before, and what the performance of those systems have been, compared to capitalism.
Broadly, all capitalism works on the same principle: investment, growth, dividends; lending, growth, interest. This means: 1. that any cessation or even momentary pause in economic growth causes severe hardship and 2. that wealth trickles (and sometimes gushes) upward: "It takes money to make money."
In nations with a strong socialist faction, the effect is mitigated by regulation, taxation and social welfare legislation, so that income disparity (and power distribution) is not as wide. However, even those nations run on debt. Simply, all capitalism runs on debt.
Capital is a term for financial assets, such as funds held in deposit accounts. While money is used to purchase goods and services for consumption, capital is more durable and is used to generate wealth through investment. The four major types of capital include debt, equity, trading, and working capital.
I agree; however I would point out that capitalism does not _need_ to run on debt. It is simply a good way to grow a money supply (and an economy.) You could use hard currency with no unsupported debt allowed, and capitalism would still work just fine.
Has that ever been tried in the real world? If so, where and for how long?
"supported debt" is still debt: the lender still charges interest and seizes your valuables (or children) if you can't pay. Capitalism requires profit (which is surplus return on labour and material invested); it still has to grow to survive.
Natural resources must be used by labour to produce goods for sale, and those goods must be consumed - converted to waste - so that more goods can be sold. And since there is a finite amount of matter and energy to convert into product, once all the trees, oil and animals have been transformed into landfill and smog, no further "wealth creation" is possible.
Last edited:
The US was on the gold standard up until 1930 or so. That is similar but not identical; since currency was tied to gold, currency could only expand as the supply of gold expanded. It worked.
Correct. But it doesn't grow the money supply - so no inflation. (More accurately, cyclic inflation and deflation that averages to a fixed value.)
Nope. Profit is indeed required - but growth is not. People die and return their money to circulation, for example.
Right. And that waste can then be reused with the addition of energy. Farming is a simple example.
Ah. But trees get converted to wood, and apples, and cinnamon - and all that eventually decomposes into dirt. Sunlight then converts dirt back into trees. In the long term, of course - but we are taking the long view for this exercise.
It worked - right up to 10/24/1929 - but the economy kept on expanding up till that moment.
So what? It's still growth: using up resources to return more than was invested.
Profit is the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something
which means making the value bigger.
No they don't. They leave it to their children in the form of real estate, stocks and assets that will accrue even more money. But even if money is in circulation, the economy keeps on growing, while resources keep on diminishing.
How does a farm use plastic skimmed off the ocean? In fact, farms also produce copious amounts of methane and toxic runoff.
In theory, it would have been possible to recycle the products of mass manufacturing, had a serious plan been devised early in the industrial age. Now, there is simply too much garbage: only a small fraction is converted into anything useful - and that, yes, with a considerable addition of energy --- which is also a finite commodity.
And burned to make more CO2, or carted off to smoky sawmills to make building material for vast tracts of suburban houses, for which forests and wetlands had been destroyed, the construction and occupancy of which will produce even more greenhouse gas, but the plants that could have absorbed it are gone.
Only as long as they're alive
The lumber, yes; not the concrete foundations, windows and plastic insulation.
A million years after we're gone, the planet may revive. Sure. Take the god's eye view.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
One good snowball Earth and we're back to zero.
in the national news yesterday:
Climate emergency declared by 11,000 scientists worldwide who warn of 'catastrophic threat' to humanity
More than 11,000 scientists around the world have signed a scientific paper declaring a climate emergency, backing protesters across the world demanding action.
The paper, published in the journal BioScience, declares the climate crisis "has arrived" and is "accelerating faster than most scientists expect".
"Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat," the paper said.
The paper, published in the journal BioScience, declares the climate crisis "has arrived" and is "accelerating faster than most scientists expect".
"Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat," the paper said.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11...gency-11000-scientists-sign-petition/11672776
The news ran on free to air SBS, ABC. 3 minute segments.
so perhaps the sky is indeed falling?
What do the words Catastrophic Threat mean to you?
...and inadvertently demonstrating denial by doing so....
How do you think the global economy will fair as the climate situation deteriorates?
In possibly less than 5 years there may not be an "Economy" as we know it....
This is why I asked what the words Catastrophic Threat means to you?
To talk about "the economy" - any kind of economy, never mind the system of trade and commerce we see lurching about us like a drunk with burrs in his shorts - separately from the climate crisis is delusional, at best.
The sky is all right - we haven't burned off the atmosphere yet - it's the earth that's knee-deep in ungawa.
The sky is all right - we haven't burned off the atmosphere yet - it's the earth that's knee-deep in ungawa.
It is "funny" in a way and totally to be expected I guess...
I was having this convo with person who believes themselves to be a climate crisis believer and they were discussing how they had to defend the coal industry because we need coal for the steel industry etc...and I am sort of thinking there in lays the problem.
To me, the focus needs to be on accepting that all we can do is minimize, but not stop Co2 production and get on with building a future for a very different world. One that needs extreme climate protected solutions. Minimizing causalities and optimizing humanities chances for a future.
Get on with learning how to master transforming, a terraforming we have started so badly and need to finish successfully.
The first step is to plant trillions of trees globally as a matter of urgency, no ifs no buts but get it done and get it done scientifically and quickly.
Perhaps a tree planting tax needs to be mandatory?
The tree planting in itself is not the issue it is the psychological effect that having a global population focused on accepting climate change (crisis) requires a solution... that is... IMO it would give people a common cause and hope and a sense that they can do something about it all...
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
China is doing a great job I believe. I seem to recall a billion trees...if only USA could match them ...
For each human birth X trees to be planted, each tree cut down five in its place...
Reduce sky scrapers...coal is needed for manufacture of cement and steel ...reduce sky scrapers reduces the need to burn coal.
NP will be far too expensive ...look how expensive to date and most waste has yet to be stored...you can't use storage lockers. .how much to maintain all the accident sites...A NP world will be worse than anything climate change will deliver.
NP fuel will not remain cheap when fossil fuel is sidelined.
Alex
Alex