State of mind for a viable future

[eclectron]

I admit that I don't understand what your "way out" is!

The same as yours!
Even if you ignore yours? re

Simply a sustainable world, therefore an economy which does not outrageously destroy life on the planet, including ourselves.
Or something other than capitalism, and it has to be built.
Perennial money is only a step in the right direction since without it, a sustainable world is structurally impossible.
One step, without necessarily being aware of what the end of the path will be precisely (which I do not know myself)
It is necessary that, a perennial Currency, after happens that will be able according to the interactions.

It is a possibility that a certain bailout will take place at this level, not however with a view to any emancipation from the financial system, but quite the contrary in order to be able to continue to enslave it thanks to this "boost" which will allow the economy to "start again" ... A sort of Marschall plan to prevent everything from collapsing and causing damage to finance.

I think (believe, hope ) that there is humanity in the people of the ECB and that if they create money, free or not, it is also not to let people starve.
Because in brackets and to emphasize our dependence on money, there will be no less agricultural production this year. The farmers are in the fields and work normally, except for a few spare parts problems.
So the food will be nice and there.
Will just miss the money for those who need it to eat.
This situation highlights the absurdity of our system, if we scrupulously respect its rules ...
food is there but nobody can eat for lack of money

The monetary creation of the ECB, free or not, is obviously also to save the house finance.
if monetary creation is free (gift), there will be a verse in the fruit that can lead to the rejection of capitalism by the peoples.
if money creation pays off (loan with interest) it is an additional burden for the future, it can also lead to rebellions.
Privatization of profits and socialization of losses, it worked once in 2008!
Not sure if the pill is passed a second time.
Examples like Iceland can multiply and succeed this time.

PS: I still don't understand this concept of destruction or no money ...

it should be clear https://www.ecossimo.com/le-mecanisme-d ... -monetaire
or my simple example of the sinner, the carpenter etc ...

[ABC2019]

I find the position of eclectron super clear: he would like a modern, rich society, with all the current comfort, for everyone, but which consumes no resources, which does not harm nature, and which lasts eternally. A priori if it is possible nobody is against.

[Ahmed]

Ecletron, you write:

Simply a sustainable world, therefore an economy which does not outrageously destroy life on the planet, including ourselves. Or something other than capitalism, and it has to be built.

There is a contradiction between "economy" and "sustainable world", as also noted ABC2019...

As well:

I think (believe, hope ) that there is humanity in the people of the ECB and that if they create money, free or not, it is also not to let people starve.

Of humanity as private persons, certainly, but not at all as agents of the economic system * and if the latter do not wish to let “people starve”, it is to preserve the mass of producer-consumers (the others are not recognized, they simply do not exist); it is therefore a provisional measure and in no way emancipatory (on the contrary, it is a little freedom the time to reintegrate its chains).

* This has been remarkably theorized by Adam Smith, one of the founding fathers of liberalism in his two works ...

I looked at your "ecossimo" and they stick to a very superficial explanation which therefore does not help me ...

[eclectron]

I find the position of eclectron super clear: he would like a modern, rich society, with all the current comfort, for everyone, but which consumes no resources, which does not harm nature, and which lasts eternally. A priori if it is possible nobody is against.

Come where I kiss you!
There is that.
I would rather say ... which consumes almost no non-renewable resource.
That supposes to close the cycles and not to have an agriculture (to take a concrete example) in open cycle as today.
all inputs and energy are fossilized and therefore doomed to dry up.
digested food ends up pooping in the sea.
In short, all false concerning sustainability.
Do not tell me that it is impossible to close the cycles.
we did it before ...
Except that today we have a lot more knowledge and technicality to be more efficient.
Apply this principle to everything and it's won.

Your recurring question "why don't we do it"?
Habits to upset, financial investments in the current path of the open cycle to make profitable, easy money absent to transit, solutions to develop or popularize.
A gigantic site!
These are reasons not to do so.

[ENERC]

Your recurring question "why don't we do it"?
Habits to upset, financial investments in the current path of the open cycle to make profitable, easy money absent to transit, solutions to develop or popularize.
A gigantic site!
These are reasons not to do so.

Let us be clear, we have left for a lasting economic crisis. Even our national Bruno compares it to that of 1929.
In this crisis, there are going to be a lot of breakages and wars.
For example: airlines that will not recover, US shale oil that will stop on a financial crisis, bankruptcies of energy players and their subcontractors who could very well prevent the revival of the economy from before.
If the US goes into a serious crisis, then it is likely that the world will change at all in less than 10 years.

[eclectron]

There is a contradiction between "economy" and "sustainable world", as also noted ABC2019...

Oh no, not you!
no doubt you think economy almost identical to today. In this case you would be right.

You have to think of another economy, in another framework, think of another paradigm, that's for sure:
The sustainability paradigm as the guiding principle of society.
Society with non-limiting or rare energy, this criterion changes the level of technological equipment in society.
in both cases the company will be energy efficient as much as it can, since it is conscious and focused on sustainability.
The non-limiting energy can easily produce and recycle durable high-tech goods
The one whose energy will be scarce will have rudimentary technological equipment.
It's a choice...

Of humanity as private persons, certainly, but not at all as agents of the economic system * and if the latter do not wish to let “people starve”, it is to preserve the mass of producer-consumers (the others are not recognized, they simply do not exist); it is therefore a provisional measure and in no way emancipatory (on the contrary, it is a little freedom the time to reintegrate its chains).

I may be naive on this point but I think these people have a heart that will open up to the extent of the damage.
Even our dear President suggests that ... but he's a good actor.
We still knew Nazism and the concentration camps.
I do not think that decision-makers will have fun letting such conditions prevail in order to respect the dogmas of the current economy.

* This has been remarkably theorized by Adam Smith, one of the founding fathers of liberalism in his two works ...

It is not because some people were and are cynical that this type of thinking should be conveyed.
In my opinion it is especially necessary to try to make the opposite flower.

I looked at your "ecossimo" and they stick to a very superficial explanation which therefore does not help me ...

I don't understand what you don't understand?
A loan is money created ex nihilo by the bank.
It then enters the growing world money supply.
Each repayment of the loan destroys a sum of money which then reduces the world money supply by the same amount.
At the end of the loan repayment, the world money supply (assuming it to be constant elsewhere), returns to its pre-loan level, as if it never existed.
I voluntarily make no link with the possession of property at the end of the loan.
I'm only interested in browsing money.

econossimo too.

[eclectron]

Your recurring question "why don't we do it"?
Habits to upset, financial investments in the current path of the open cycle to make profitable, easy money absent to transit, solutions to develop or popularize.
A gigantic site!
These are reasons not to do so.

Let us be clear, we have left for a lasting economic crisis. Even our national Bruno compares it to that of 1929.
In this crisis, there are going to be a lot of breakages and wars.
For example: airlines that will not recover, US shale oil that will stop on a financial crisis, bankruptcies of energy players and their subcontractors who could very well prevent the revival of the economy from before.
If the US goes into a serious crisis, then it is likely that the world will change at all in less than 10 years.

If the "decision-makers" brace themselves on the dogmas of the economy, it is sure that there will be an unprecedented disaster.
Will they have the courage and the intelligence to think outside the box ...
and say we elected those
wait and see..will they be touched by grace?

[GuyGadebois]

[Ahmed]

Eclectron, you write:

Oh no, not you! no doubt you think economy almost identical to today. In this case, you would be right.

I do not think that ABC2019 analyze things the same way as I do , that said, the term "economy" refers to something which precisely is to be fought (since being an integral part of the system)!

About naivety: it has never been prohibited ...

You write:

It is not because some were and are cynical that this type of thinking should be conveyed.

I do not carry anything at all, especially not that, but I am obliged to note this type of operation.

Further:

I don't understand what you don't understand?
A loan is money created ex nihilo by the bank.
It then enters the growing world money supply.
Each repayment of the loan destroys a sum of money which then reduces the world money supply by the same amount.

You confuse the visible symbol and what it represents: the anticipated abstract value is well realized through the abstract work of the borrower and then lives his life under various avatars, without being destroyed (it can also happen, but this doesn’t is not a rule), which increases material wealth and capital ...

[eclectron]

You confuse the visible symbol and what it represents: the anticipated abstract value is well realized through the abstract work of the borrower and then lives his life under various avatars, without being destroyed (it can also happen, but this doesn’t is not a rule), which increases material wealth and capital ...

It is a problem that you ask yourself, because of your knowledge and you remain deaf to the obvious, to the simplicity of the facts.

I don't confuse anything, I think it's you who insists on wanting to confuse.
I only speak and am interested in what you call "visible symbol" and that everyone calls money: its creation, its destruction, its mass, the reasons for its creation, the reasons for its destruction and the imperative need to have enough in mass to exchange and therefore live.
in the current system, this is done in a pernicious way by forcing us to growth and therefore to destruction.
All this to underline / illustrate that the money system must be changed.
I don't know why I seem to repeat myself