You might have noticed that more and more people can'r find work, there are more and more food shorteges in certain parts of the world, unsufficient resources for everybody i.e. water, electricity, and so on. The are many problems on a material plan, but we often forget what happengs on a moral level. From the moment i began existing as a conscient beying i have been feeling that life isn't valued enough or at all in our times and societies.
there's also the effect we have on the planet im not talking about our inpact on ecology (there is that too!!) i'm pointing out that we have made many spicies exting or on the verge of extinction, not to mention the enormous amount of resources we deploy often in detriment of other living creatures and other humans.
so the problems are here what are the solutions? is reducing our numbers is a solution?
Money comes from central banks out of a loan, and non-reserve money, 90%, can then be loaned out without actually putting up any of the deposit money to create 90% on top of the original 100%, creating more money out of thin air and causing inflation.
In this sense, when you can have so much "negative" money, I guess I see your point.
I do think it is a good thing, but at the same time it creates unemployment. It creates a boundary between people money wise. Can you give me an example of how mechanisation can produce more jobs?
Yes, in the machine-making business. :P But I was pointing to the fact that you assume production will remain the same.
Bear with me - technology allows us to produce stuff for less cost. For example, with the Bessemer process in steel, other companies who relied on steel were able to become more efficient and expand. An increased efficiency in one are of the economy has effects that are often unnoticed.
If you can produce something for less, it is also better for the consumer. It combats inflation, because whereas you could have gotten that good for $3 previously, you can now get it for $1. It helps both the business and the consumer. This consumer now has more money that he / she can spend elsewhere. If this person is not paid less because of technology, their money is worth slightly more.
that there is no incentive to push for renewable/sustainable resources until we hit a deadend.
Unless of course consumers are willing to pay for it. And if people don't want it, then isn't it pretty silly to say that they should have it, anyway?
Pointing out mutually beneficial trades doesn't really attack my argument since I am saying that even though it is a trade that benefits both parties, it is not an efficient system and in some cases rewards inefficiency with profitability which leads to wasted resources.
If it's more efficient, people will want it more than inefficiency, unless the "cost" is "not worth it," in which case they wouldn't.
I'm glad I am not getting flamed for this and instead being addressed seriously despite the fact that I am obviously not as knowledgable about economics as I would like, but hopefully I know enough to cover what I have said. But currently as I see it, our monetary system is flawed and is inherently an inflation based system that promotes profitability above all else.
What I tried to bring up about the mechanization, which I apparently didn't make clear, is that even though it makes production more efficient it generally produces less work. When we eventually have almost all jobs mechanized it will be impossible for a lot of people to get jobs. Even if products are cheap, jobless people can't afford them and the cheaper goods become a commodity for only the rich.
And also in an inherently inflation based economy, you can only hold back inflation for so long. We all know that currency has been devaluating over the years and has devalued a hell of a lot. This won't stop unless we do something about the monetary system.
Unfortunately I can't offer any solutions, and as tempting as it may be to say abandon currency and distribute resources fairly, that would be far beyond my understanding of all the consequences and how it may play out.
Unless of course consumers are willing to pay for it. And if people don't want it, then isn't it pretty silly to say that they should have it, anyway?
But that's the problem, if there is no incentive for either side to push for a more sustainable way of life then we will continue heading for a deadend. But what happens to the next generations who have to face being underdeveloped for a world that lacks the resources we had?
When we eventually have almost all jobs mechanized it will be impossible for a lot of people to get jobs.
In such a society, there would have to be so much surplus good that these small commodities would be rendered almost "worthless" from a seller's point of view.
But currently as I see it, our monetary system is flawed and is inherently an inflation based system that promotes profitability above all else.
Inflation does not affect the amount of goods - it only devalues everyone's money.
And also in an inherently inflation based economy, you can only hold back inflation for so long.
I don't see how this leads to -
as tempting as it may be to say abandon currency and distribute resources fairly
Your evidence has not pointed towards anything to support economies as "inflation-based" other than the loaning. So I don't see why such a radical solution is necessary. Second, currency is simply a means to acquire goods, so abolishing currency would not solve the problem other than force people to have goods lying around all over the place instead of money. This is one of the major reasons why money is useful - it is easy to carry, store, and use.
Inflation does not affect the amount of goods - it only devalues everyone's money.
But inflation artificially increases the prices of goods that isn't necessarily becoming more scarce. If there is more money created but the same number of goods, people have to go work even harder to buy things even though they already had money to begin with. People save up money but their money devalues because of loans.
Your evidence has not pointed towards anything to support economies as "inflation-based" other than the loaning. So I don't see why such a radical solution is necessary. Second, currency is simply a means to acquire goods, so abolishing currency would not solve the problem other than force people to have goods lying around all over the place instead of money. This is one of the major reasons why money is useful - it is easy to carry, store, and use.
The fact that money is generated by debt and that debts generally come with interest, interest that don't even exist, even more money has to be created by loans and so an endless cycle of inflation as I stated earlier. As long as there is debt there is interest.
The reason I brought up abandonment of currency is because inflation forces the poorer people to constantly run on a hamster wheel for the big corporations because their money is constantly becoming worth less while the bigger corporations are being as profitable as possible and ammasing wealth for themselves. Constantly working to produce and support consumer goods that we don't even need just to circulate money and increase capital seems counter productive.
The reason I brought up fair distribution of resources instead of using conventional currency is because currently there is mass poverty and starvation that is unnecessary because we have the resources to solve these problems, they are just not distributed fairly. Obviously distributing goods fairly without currency would be far beyond what we can achieve right now and I don't know if this is even possible at all. As I said I don't know enough about what will happen if these ideas were to be used so you can dismiss them if you want, but my main point is that the current monetary system is not efficient in making use of our resources and fairly distributing wealth. Having a few percent of the world population with most of the wealth means that obviously we don't have a problem with scarcity of resources more than we have a problem with resource distribution.
The other point is that reducing human population won't fix the problem because even if you kill off all the poor people, you will still have a system where resources are not distributed fairly and new people will become poor.
If there is more money created but the same number of goods, people have to go work even harder to buy things even though they already had money to begin with.
Not true because inflation already means that they will be paid more for the same work.
People save up money but their money devalues because of loans.
Well, you're right about that their money does devalue.
The reason I brought up fair distribution of resources instead of using conventional currency is because currently there is mass poverty and starvation that is unnecessary because we have the resources to solve these problems, they are just not distributed fairly.
Obviously distributing goods fairly without currency would be far beyond what we can achieve right now and I don't know if this is even possible at all.
I know it's my favorite saying, but this ignores the unseen. If someone saves money, that decreases inflation because there is less circulating money competing for goods. Other than that, the money is being used for some purpose - and this leads to job creation. So redistribution has zero or negative gain (because there is some amount that is lost to bureaucrats, etc. but this money could have been used more efficiently).
Not true because inflation already means that they will be paid more for the same work.
Yeah, I guess you're right.
I know it's my favorite saying, but this ignores the unseen. If someone saves money, that decreases inflation because there is less circulating money competing for goods. Other than that, the money is being used for some purpose - and this leads to job creation. So redistribution has zero or negative gain (because there is some amount that is lost to bureaucrats, etc. but this money could have been used more efficiently).
I don't really understans what you are saying. My idea was to distribute resources equally so that poor countries who have to work hard get what they deserve, a better quality of life and proper nutrition. I don't see how inflation comes into play here, or why this would have zero or negative gain so can you explain it to me please?
My idea was to distribute resources equally so that poor countries who have to work hard get what they deserve, a better quality of life and proper nutrition.
Sorry - I thought you meant within a country.
How about this - you let the government fail and set up a free market democratic government (or a Night Watchman state :P) with a clean slate. If they don't have huge issues like rampant AIDS and malaria, then this new government would be very prosperous.
What I was talking about was that the effect of distribution within a country doesn't really do anything except move around resources. Its total effect on the "lower class" is not as significant as it seems, because those resources could have been put to other uses in job creation, etc, which helps to a similar degree. If anything, it requires resources to create such a program, and thus hurts more than it helps.
In my opinion, monetary system and underdevelopped countries don't suffer from loans (in might make our lives more harsh) but the real problem comes from human factors: -for loans, man tries to steal or cheat it's business partner, like we have see many time bank emploies beying arrested (what about those who succeded) plus the bank can't announce that money was stolen it would make people doubt the bank security. so the bank takes what was missing from somewhere else. (interest rates) -Under developped countries in general are pooly organized: 1st of all this countries in general are dectatorship or undemocratised, which means that the power is in hands of a man who doesn't really care about people, he's controling the population and isn't trying to overcome the problems his people are facing, since he lives in good palace, and isn't needing anything. 2nd i have lived in counries in which the govr. made it difficul or near impossible(unless you pay a brib) to open a small business, or humanitarian help get to it's destination, which in it's turn makes businessmen from abroad lose their interest in such countries. Thus rendering the population jobless. which causes extremist parties to take a good possition in the region(ex: islamist) I agree that the economic at hand is getting old and needs some new ideas, but first the problem of corruption must be eradicated.
The other solution is an oppressive world government who regulates reproduction.
i doesn't have to be that way, there can be laws ,according to which, making more that 2 children per women punishable by a fine, and a amount of money that is given by the govr to the familly which won't change even if the familly has got 1,2,3 or 4 kinds.
Yes it will because of having so much people we have to build way more and have way more and take way more then we ever had to. What if we actually don't have space for humans anymore. What if we reduced our population and stopped everything, the end for things but i don't know anymore. It can't be too late, well not yet.
Computer******, the problem that is being thematized here is overpopulation. We are already starting to suffer from it, and the question is how to handle it. There are surely ways to stunt further population growth without having to kill people, like for example raising life standart in third world countries, or birth control; also, better use of resources and less corruption in the system would greatly increase the carrying capacity of our system. There is not really a need, for now at least, to kill already living people.
