world we live preview

Current Economy and Sustainable Development-compatible? GDP growth (at all costs), economic development, inflation ... How concillier the current economy with the environment and sustainable development.
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: World in which we live preview




by Ahmed » 19/01/17, 20:53

I probably misspoke, since you read that it is society that determines the individual and not the opposite. This formulation would be inadequate and, in fact, the determinisms at play act as if they were external to society, since they are not a conscious result of our actions, but a hypostasiated social construction (a fetish, what! 8) ).
I watched the conference and I like the way Jancovici tackles these questions, but I start to disagree with him from 50 '' (not on everything, but on his economic analysis) ...
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
eclectron
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2922
Registration: 21/06/16, 15:22
x 397

Re: World in which we live preview




by eclectron » 20/01/17, 16:57

Ahmed wrote: in fact, the determinisms at play act as if they were outside society, since they are not a conscious result of our actions,


We can see like that but once again this way of seeing is fatalistic, infantilizing and confirms the impotence faced with the situation, a discourse that revolts me internally.

The solution to get out of this vicious circle is to raise awareness of our unconscious.
No need for higher education for this, it is "enough" * to pay enough attention to yourself.

* not easy to do as we are conditioned by society not to do it. We are in the cult of thought and not that of attention. I emit or observe from a point (self or an idea) and not I pay attention to everything without referring to a point. A whole program of deprogramming ... : Lol:
0 x
whatever.
We will try the 3 posts per day max
eclectron
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2922
Registration: 21/06/16, 15:22
x 397

Re: World in which we live preview




by eclectron » 20/01/17, 16:59

What do you think of this pessimistic and anxiety-provoking vision?
economy-finance / overview-the-world-in-which-we-live-t15055-80.html # p315081
0 x
whatever.
We will try the 3 posts per day max
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: World in which we live preview




by Ahmed » 20/01/17, 18:49

Slowly! We were talking about the conference Jancovici...
If there is indeed a concordance between energy flow and monetary flow, it is however necessary not to mix everything as our speaker sometimes does by an overly mechanical application of his basic axiom. When he explains, for example, the economic crisis of 1973 by the sudden rise in the price of a barrel, I think that he goes a little quickly in work: the reality is that in an economy which gradually moved away from the bases from the self-valorization of value due to the decrease in the mass of productive human labor mobilized, this additional energy cost was the spark that sparked much more than the substantial cause.
The solutions he advocates are basically fairly tasteful, except that this implies, in addition to practical repositionings that are not obvious, a change in software that he does not seem to perceive. Indeed, throughout his presentation, he considers that the GDP roughly reflects the well-being of those with whom it is high, therefore that all production is done for the satisfaction of human needs, whereas this is not true only secondarily, which is very different. In practice this means that our level of comfort can only be obtained at the cost of senseless waste and that to remedy these while maintaining a dignified lifestyle (which does not involve the possession of the latest xxx ... ) to as many people as possible, production must necessarily be redirected towards real-sensible wealth and no longer be satisfied with obtaining it through and despite, one might say, the accumulation of abstract value.
What shows the relevance of this point of view is that if the physical quantity of oil decreases constantly, it is the weakness of the economy (its increasing difficulty in achieving its self-growth) which keeps the prices of low energy, which leads to its demonstration, at least on this cyclical point.
On the whole, what he explains seems to me much more convincing than the "fixette" of Gabriel Rabhi on the interest which focuses on a point without taking the trouble to understand (understanding does not necessarily mean approving!) the whole. Sylvio Gesell, an economist now forgotten, had straddled the same workhorse at the start of the XNUMXth century ...
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: World in which we live preview




by Ahmed » 20/01/17, 19:28

I just watched the video of Gael Giraud. What is rather curious on the part of an economist (not that much in fact, since it is quite recurrent in this sphere ...) is that he is sorry for the weakness of our economy, on the grounds that the funds available to remedy the growing problems would have become insufficient, while it is this same economy which, by its exponential extension, is the cause of what it deplores ...
In the last part, he affirms that it is necessary to develop in the countries of the south this agriculture of subsistence that the competition with the countries of the north knew so well how to eradicate! Suffice to say that all this is only wishful thinking, since in fundamental contradiction with the dominant religion; moreover, by focusing the damage to the south, it involuntarily indicates what will be the natural slope: clinging to its advantages by building watertight walls against migrants ... : roll:
This is all the more true since he is insensitive to what threatens us far more than the climatic disorder, we, the countries of the north.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: World in which we live preview




by sen-no-sen » 20/01/17, 21:02

Ahmed wrote: When he explains, for example, the economic crisis of 1973 by the sudden rise in the price of a barrel, I think that he goes a little quickly in work: the reality is that in an economy which gradually moved away from the bases from the self-valorization of value due to the decrease in the mass of productive human labor mobilized, this additional energy cost was the spark that sparked much more than the substantial cause.


Indeed, the 1973 crisis only confirmed a process already underway.
This period corresponds in fact to the structural limit of national growth, it is for this reason that from 1973 the famous "Pompidou / Giscard" law was voted.
As growth could no longer occur by itself within the national economic sphere, it was necessary to borrow to guarantee growth, in return for which it "had" to repay the debt ... nothing has changed and the subterfuge still works.
Is the conflict of 1973 or the Yom Kippur War symbolically marked happening, a kind of historical warning?
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: World in which we live preview




by Ahmed » 20/01/17, 22:23

This process of systemic collapse continues inexorably and it is obviously not the next elections (!) That will change anything. The capacity of the "subterfuge" is itself limited, because the financial sphere is structurally connected to the physical economy, contrary to what those who defend the system want us to believe as well as those who oppose it. When the hope of a future valuation (which had worked so well in previous periods) is dissipated, then the system will implode on its own and this will be very damaging to the extent that, as rightly put Roddier: "It represents an economy of well-off individuals, free from any constraint binding one to another, and whose relationships are limited to exchanges of values ​​during occasional meetings: an ideal we call liberalism. "
It is I who underline what is serious: men now relating to each other through merchandise, this raises the question of the possibility of overcoming the collapse.
What does not perceive Roddier, when he says that stagflation, this oeni (unidentified economic object, incompatible with economic theories) results from weak demand (due to mass unemployment, the rate of household equipment and the lack of new products in sufficient quantity) is that, more fundamentally (which I have not emphasized enough), the eviction of human labor drastically reduces the creation of abstract value and blocks the process of self-valorization of the abstract value *. Machines are capable of physically replacing workers and also of producing physical-sensitive wealth, but not of providing goodwill likely to add value to invested capital.
Stagflation (economic stagnation + inflation) is currently more oriented towards the first term than the second for several reasons: on the one hand, as I have already indicated, learned statistical corrections minimize the importance of real inflation * *, on the other hand, the huge injection of capital is mainly deployed in the financial sphere, which makes the financial markets swell, but suddenly does not increase in the same proportions the money supply in circulation, only money in as capital.

* This is the real reason why universal income is an absurdity.
** A hedonic index is, for example, calculated to take into account the fact that the current versions of the goods incorporate improvements not contained in the previous versions, thus an automobile with new safety, guiding devices will be affected by a coefficient which will decrease its effective price in order to compare it to a model which did not have one, however the buyer will have to pay a higher sum since he has no choice between these two versions.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
eclectron
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2922
Registration: 21/06/16, 15:22
x 397

Re: World in which we live preview




by eclectron » 21/01/17, 11:20

Ahmed wrote:
a software change that he does not seem to perceive.

I think he does not see himself as a revolutionary, in addition to his speech disturbing for the smooth running of "business as usual", if in addition he advocated a change of paradigm I think that it would be indigestion for many listeners and that would discredit him de facto, by epidermal rejection.
I think he lets others take care of himself, to remain audible, already that he is not that much.

Ahmed wrote: is that if the physical quantity of oil decreases constantly, it is the weakness of the economy (its increasing difficulty in achieving its self-increase) which keeps the prices of energy low, which drags down its demonstration, at least on this conjunctural point.

He also proclaimed it enough, the price of energy is far too low compared to what it represents.

Ahmed wrote:On the whole, what he explains seems to me much more convincing than the "fixette" of Gabriel Rabhi on the interest which focuses on a point without taking the trouble to understand (understanding does not necessarily mean approving!) the whole. Sylvio Gesell, an economist now forgotten, had straddled the same workhorse at the start of the XNUMXth century ...

From my point of view the fixettes of each are to be taken into account and amuse / synthesize to obtain the global vision.
The latter eventually making it possible to act in the right direction.
0 x
whatever.
We will try the 3 posts per day max
eclectron
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2922
Registration: 21/06/16, 15:22
x 397

Re: World in which we live preview




by eclectron » 21/01/17, 11:27

Ahmed wrote:I just watched the video of Gael Giraud. What is rather curious on the part of an economist (not that much in fact, since it is quite recurrent in this sphere ...) is that he is sorry for the weakness of our economy, on the grounds that the funds available to remedy the growing problems would have become insufficient, while it is this same economy which, by its exponential extension, is the cause of what it deplores ...
In the last part, he affirms that it is necessary to develop in the countries of the south this agriculture of subsistence that the competition with the countries of the north knew so well how to eradicate! Suffice to say that all this is only wishful thinking, since in fundamental contradiction with the dominant religion; moreover, by focusing the damage to the south, it involuntarily indicates what will be the natural slope: clinging to its advantages by building watertight walls against migrants ... : roll:
This is all the more true since he is insensitive to what threatens us far more than the climatic disorder, we, the countries of the north.


For me, it only describes and speculates what will happen, without approving or rejecting.
Again, I see him more as a reporter who tells stories than someone who stands up for what he says.
He makes an alarmist speech that we hear little or 20 p.m. newspaper ...
The above I join Janco, no link between the real importance of the information and the media time devoted to them.
the educational role of the media is close to zero for what is really important, survival being one of them!
0 x
whatever.
We will try the 3 posts per day max
eclectron
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2922
Registration: 21/06/16, 15:22
x 397

Re: World in which we live preview




by eclectron » 21/01/17, 11:41

sen-no-sen wrote:Indeed, the 1973 crisis only confirmed a process already underway.
This period corresponds in fact to the structural limit of national growth, it is for this reason that from 1973 the famous "Pompidou / Giscard" law was voted.
As growth could no longer occur by itself within the national economic sphere, it was necessary to borrow to guarantee growth, in return for which it "had" to repay the debt ... nothing has changed and the subterfuge still works.
Is the conflict of 1973 or the Yom Kippur War symbolically marked happening, a kind of historical warning?


In addition to this pivotal time:
I saw a report once on a channel (that's precise! : Lol: ) where kissinger approached the Arab countries so that they increase the price of oil, America having passed its internal oil peak around this time, an awareness of the limits must have taken place in these years: out of the book the limits of growth + American peak oil.
I think that the will of the US government at the time was to land softly against unbridled US growth by calming it down by the constraint on the price of energy.
This intention was clearly swept away by Reagan and his big friend Thatcher.
0 x
whatever.
We will try the 3 posts per day max

Back to "Economy and finance, sustainability, growth, GDP, ecological tax systems"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 117 guests