> Is there not confusion within the ranks of our allegedly erudite
> economic scholars who see only increased production as solution to
> Social Problems?
Obviously, if one can not "grow", then one must "redistribute". That is why
it will be opposed to the very bloody end.
The problem of human "rationality" stands as one real barrier to
"sustainability", but problems in the monetary system and wealth
accumulation must be addressed too.
When banks "create new money" by making loans, they "create new demands" on
our finite biosphere. If wealth keeps accumulating, at some point wealthy
people can afford to chop down the last tree, cover the last meadow with
asphalt, catch the last fish, bribe the last honest politician, and so on.
It's just a matter of time.
Robert L. Hickerson wrote an interesting piece about M. King Hubbert.
Hubbert noticed the fundamental difference between the properties of money
and those of matter and energy upon which the operation of the physical
world depends. Money is essentially an abstraction and not constrained by
the laws within which material and energy systems must operate. In fact
money grows exponentially by the rule of compound interest. Hubbert
suggested we do away with money and distribute "energy certificates"
instead:
"On this basis our distribution then becomes foolproof and incredibly
simple. We keep our records of the physical costs of production in terms of
the amount of extraneous energy degraded. We set industrial production
arbitrarily at a rate equal to the saturation of the physical capacity of
our public to consume. We distribute purchasing power in the form of energy
certificates to the public, the amount issued to each being equivalent to
his pro rata share of the energy-cost of the consumer goods and services to
be produced during the balanced-load period for which the certificates are
issued. These certificates bear the identification of the person to whom
issued and are non negotiable. They resemble a bank check in that they bear
no face denomination, this being entered at the time of spending. They are
surrendered upon the purchase of goods or services at any center of
distribution and are permanently canceled, becoming entries in a uniform
accounting system. Being nonnegotiable they cannot be lost, stolen, gambled,
or given away because they are invalid in the hands of any person other than
the one to whom issued. If lost, like a bank checkbook, new ones may be had
for the asking. Neither can they be saved because they become void at the
termination of the two-year period for which they are issued. They can only
be spent." [ For more, see
http://www.ganesa.com/ecotopia/hubbert/hubecon.htm ]
Hubbert’s proposal is extremely radical, but the explosive disintegration of
civilization is extremely radical too.
Jay -- www.dieoff.com
