To GreenLeap 2\/10\/09, edited response to Glenn Albrecht saying \u201cI am genuinely surprised that the global financial system has failed before ecological systems.\u201d in his blog post: http:\/\/ethicsclimate.blogspot.com\/2009\/02\/ethics-of-nation-building.html<\/p>\n
\u2014<\/p>\n
Glen,
\nYes indeed. \u00a0\u00a0If surprising, yes, but it\u2019s also quite fortunate that the global financial system failed BEFORE the ecological systems\u2026\u00a0 That gives us a little time to think, before the calmity occurs that we couldn\u2019t recover from.<\/p>\n
Now, let me think\u2026 \u00a0What happens if we restore the global financial growth system to its former glory\u2026?\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Hmmm\u2026.<\/p>\n
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\u2019s elementary physics of natural systems.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
I can explain it in a number of very understandable ways. It doesn\u2019t seem to reinforce anyone\u2019s prejudices, however, that the problem is a *proceedure<\/strong>* not an *attitude<\/strong>*, so I\u2019ve been completely unable to get anyone actually interested in it.<\/p>\n The real correctable problem starts with the need for an economy to have a stable positive interest rate for it to remain stable.\u00a0\u00a0 It\u2019s key to guiding investments to useful things.<\/p>\n Because we then allow people to reinvest their investment income,\u00a0though, 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.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 That blows up any scheme for stability in the end for rather obvious reasons.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 That\u2019s the growth imperative, a procedure.<\/p>\n 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<\/strong>* reather than *maximum rate of expansion, headed for no profit<\/strong>*.<\/p>\n It wouldn\u2019t really matter what anyone thinks the purpose was\u2026\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It\u2019s weird, yes, that physical phenomena don\u2019t behave as they are told and so we should learn what they do of their own accord, but ask questions for heavens sake.<\/p>\n Phil Henshaw <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" To GreenLeap 2\/10\/09, edited response to Glenn Albrecht saying \u201cI am genuinely surprised that the global financial system has failed before ecological systems.\u201d in his blog post: http:\/\/ethicsclimate.blogspot.com\/2009\/02\/ethics-of-nation-building.html \u2014 Glen, Yes indeed. \u00a0\u00a0If surprising, yes, but it\u2019s also quite fortunate that the global financial system failed BEFORE the ecological systems\u2026\u00a0 That gives us a little … Continue reading So fortunate the economy collapsed!<\/span> All of humanity seems to want the events of nature to be the fault someone\u2019s intent, and just have no interest if they\u2019re not!<\/h3>\n
It\u2019s not caused by a faulty attitude, ethical value or moral code choice.<\/h3>\n
It\u2019s a proceedure that distorts any intent toward making it destructive.<\/h3>\n
\nNY NY\u00a0 www.synapse9.com<\/p>\n<\/div>\n