—

Glen,
Yes indeed.   If surprising, yes, but it’s also quite fortunate that the global financial system failed BEFORE the ecological systems…  That gives us a little time to think, before the calmity occurs that we couldn’t recover from.

Now, let me think…  What happens if we restore the global financial growth system to its former glory…?     Hmmm….

Hey, look, my sarcastic attitude comes from having figured out the one central error, and correctable mistake, in the design of the financial system 30 years ago. It’s elementary physics of natural systems.

If anyone continually reinvests their investment earnings, as nearly everyone actually does, it forms a reource use and complications growth imperitive until the whole earth is unable to produce any net earnings. Just seeing the simple clear implication that we have our defined our limit to growth as whole system failure really should be a curiosity, it would seem.

I can explain it in a number of very understandable ways. It doesn’t seem to reinforce anyone’s prejudices, however, that the problem is a *proceedure* not an *attitude*, so I’ve been completely unable to get anyone actually interested in it.

All of humanity seems to want the events of nature to be the fault someone’s intent, and just have no interest if they’re not!

The real correctable problem starts with the need for an economy to have a stable positive interest rate for it to remain stable.   It’s key to guiding investments to useful things.

Because we then allow people to reinvest their investment income, though, the stable interest rate becomes an implied guarantee of stable infinite multiplying earnings too, and the economy is then compelled to continually multiply exponentially to remain stable.    That blows up any scheme for stability in the end for rather obvious reasons.    That’s the growth imperative, a procedure.

It’s not caused by a faulty attitude, ethical value or moral code choice.

It’s a proceedure that distorts any intent toward making it destructive.

If we stoped the procedure that does it other problems would exist, but not that one. It would unplug the multipliers, naturally stop having a growth imperitive and I think would likely then stabilize at a rate of *maximum real profit* reather than *maximum rate of expansion, headed for no profit*.

It wouldn’t really matter what anyone thinks the purpose was…    It’s weird, yes, that physical phenomena don’t behave as they are told and so we should learn what they do of their own accord, but ask questions for heavens sake.

Phil Henshaw
NY NY  www.synapse9.com