Have you heard of FIAT currency? Do you know what it means?

[anywebsite]

The system certainly is working on that premise, seeing as it requires infinite growth in order to sustain itself.

 

Ever heard of technology allowing us to do more with less? Finding new resources? Adapting?

 

I don't think fossil fuels and forests are recyclable and we certainly can't afford to wait for them to regenerate. Recycling is seldom 100% efficient, meaning resources will eventually be depleted. Not to forget that whole industries and jobs depend on the extraction of fossil fuels, minerals and deforestation. Sustainability simply doesn't exist in this system's lexicon.

 

Forests are recycled all the time. As long as we don't chop down all the trees in the world at once then new trees keep growing all the time.

 

As fossil fuels get more scare they get more expensive & we switch to alternatives. Sometimes a better alternative is found before they start getting more expensive.

 

I doubt the old "technology will save us" cop out is going to last forever. Technology will soon render the majority of the human workforce obsolete, especially in the service sector. The chinese takeway on the moon will be completely automated and since you'll most likely have lost your job to a machine, you won't be able to pay for it.

 

It's saved us so far. Technology lets us do more with less. You'll always need somebody to design the Chinese takeaway robots, probably to feed the recipes in too. A single relatively cheap machine can do a job that would've taken thousands of men 100 years ago, or things that just wouldn't have been possible or could be imagined to be possible 100 years ago, people still work.

 

None of that has much to do with what currency we use, as long as we use one, obviously a barter system would slow progress down a lot.

 

If there is no inflation then there's no incentive to spend now rather than later. If there's deflation then it encourages hoarding of cash. Both of those are really bad for any economy, a small amount of inflation is healthy.

 

A gold standard can't save us, it's a ridiculous idea that could only do harm, the only people in favour of it are those with lots of gold & the easily led. http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/2012/03/fiat-money-or-gold-standard/

[IAchilleasI]

Forests are recycled all the time. As long as we don't chop down all the trees in the world at once then new trees keep growing all the time.

 

"As long as we don't" being the key phrase, which isn't what's happening right now. Here's the level of deforestation today in many regions of the world compared with the past http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_by_region.

 

As fossil fuels get more scare they get more expensive & we switch to alternatives. Sometimes a better alternative is found before they start getting more expensive.

 

The only viable alternatives right now are renewable and hence abundant, which means hardly any profit can be made from them compared to the profit made from fossil fuels. I don't see the fossil fuel industry submitting that easily. When it eventually does, you can say goodbye to the millions jobs that will dissapear with it. I doubt "green" jobs will make up for that gap.

 

It's saved us so far. Technology lets us do more with less. You'll always need somebody to design the Chinese takeaway robots, probably to feed the recipes in too. A single relatively cheap machine can do a job that would've taken thousands of men 100 years ago, or things that just wouldn't have been possible or could be imagined to be possible 100 years ago, people still work.

 

The industrial revolution is what saved us from the mechanisation of agriculture. The service sector is what saved us from the automation of factories. No one can even come close to guessing what's going to save us from the mechanisation of the service sector, because nothing will. What's stopping a robot from designing another robot or coming up with its own recipes or doing any of the countless of things we think only humans can do?

 

None of that has much to do with what currency we use, as long as we use one, obviously a barter system would slow progress down a lot.

 

It has everything to do with currency. When people don't have jobs to earn money and businesses can't sell their products due to said people not having money, the whole currency based ideology of the free market collapses.

[anywebsite]

"As long as we don't" being the key phrase, which isn't what's happening right now. Here's the level of deforestation today in many regions of the world compared with the past http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_by_region.

 

Even if we did decide to chop down all the trees in the world, we'd then have to destroy all the seed/nut & other genetic stocks so that we couldn't grow another tree. Growing trees isn't a huge mystery. Wood & charcoal are a replenishable resource.

 

The only viable alternatives right now are renewable and hence abundant, which means hardly any profit can be made from them compared to the profit made from fossil fuels. I don't see the fossil fuel industry submitting that easily. When it eventually does, you can say goodbye to the millions jobs that will dissapear with it. I doubt "green" jobs will make up for that gap.

 

Renewable doesn't mean abundant, cheap or easy to harvest. It's anything but in reality at the moment. There are plenty of more convenient sources of energy, that might one day 'run out' (or get too expensive too use), but if they do then we'll have found something else to make energy from.

 

Nuclear fusion will mean virtually unlimited energy, when it finally gets going. They're starting to build the first proper fusion power station now in France. Even with fission we're never likely to run out, not for many thousands of years.

 

The industrial revolution is what saved us from the mechanisation of agriculture. The service sector is what saved us from the automation of factories. No one can even come close to guessing what's going to save us from the mechanisation of the service sector, because nothing will. What's stopping a robot from designing another robot or coming up with its own recipes or doing any of the countless of things we think only humans can do?

 

Robots can't design better robots than themselves. Robots need someone to tell them what to do. Artificial intelligence is a long way from what you see in the movies. You can only mechanise menial jobs that don't require any real intelligence.

 

It has everything to do with currency. When people don't have jobs to earn money and businesses can't sell their products due to said people not having money, the whole currency based ideology of the free market collapses.

 

Yes, we need a currency. If it's based on something that causes deflation, like the gold standard, then it has much worse consequences for the economy than having inflationary fiat money.

 

The problems are caused by how the banks lend money. How a few people control most of the money & most of the land. How the banks only want to lend to things that look 'secure', like land & property, or have very short term gains.

[IAchilleasI]

Even if we did decide to chop down all the trees in the world, we'd then have to destroy all the seed/nut & other genetic stocks so that we couldn't grow another tree. Growing trees isn't a huge mystery. Wood & charcoal are a replenishable resource.

 

Renewable doesn't mean abundant, cheap or easy to harvest. It's anything but in reality at the moment. There are plenty of more convenient sources of energy, that might one day 'run out' (or get too expensive too use), but if they do then we'll have found something else to make energy from.

 

Nuclear fusion will mean virtually unlimited energy, when it finally gets going. They're starting to build the first proper fusion power station now in France. Even with fission we're never likely to run out, not for many thousands of years.

 

Robots can't design better robots than themselves. Robots need someone to tell them what to do. Artificial intelligence is a long way from what you see in the movies. You can only mechanise menial jobs that don't require any real intelligence.

 

Yes, we need a currency. If it's based on something that causes deflation, like the gold standard, then it has much worse consequences for the economy than having inflationary fiat money.

 

The problems are caused by how the banks lend money. How a few people control most of the money & most of the land. How the banks only want to lend to things that look 'secure', like land & property, or have very short term gains.

 

I didn't think it possible, but somehow you've managed to deny the validity of technological unemployment, resource depletion and the energy crisis in one statement, despite all the evidence in their favour. It has come to the point where debating with the self-appointed guardians of this system is no more constructive or intellectually challenging than debating with creationists.

[Phanerothyme]

I fail to see how these types of currency can gain trust.

 

If you can understand how a currency can lose trust, then just think the same thing in reverse.

 

A currency with no central issuing bank, with an absolute limit on the number in circulation, manufactured from electricity. A global currency, with no forex speculation, short selling on the pound etc. A cash like currency, no fractional reserves possible - a currency that serves rather than dictates, a currency for trade and exchange rather than a political tool or financial instrument to change behaviour.

 

I agree, it's a big conceptual step. But gold isn't intrinsically worth anything. If, as in my example, the next Chinese mission to the outer solar system discovers a few cubic kilometers of gold, gold will eventually be worthless.

 

No-one can "discover" more bitcoin, there will only ever be a max of 21,000,000,000 BTC in circulation. Less, because once lost, like cash, it is lost. That is, in my opinion, an inherent problem with bitcoin, but it's only the first.

[anywebsite]

I didn't think it possible, but somehow you've managed to deny the validity of technological unemployment, resource depletion and the energy crisis in one statement, despite all the evidence in their favour. It has come to the point where debating with the self-appointed guardians of this system is no more constructive or intellectually challenging than debating with creationists.

 

So, you don't have any counter points & are resorting to insults now? I'm no guardian of the system, just somebody who can think for themselves & doesn't take everything on a "the end is nigh" website at face value. You've failed to supply any credible evidence to counter what's happened throughout history & support your points. Do France have an energy crisis because they invested in new generation technology, or do they have the cheapest electricity in the EU, produce a huge surplus & export it to the rest of the continent?

 

How long have humans been around? When have we ever run out of energy? When has the global economy ever shrunk due to advances in technology? Advances in technology allow us to do more with less, that's called growth.

 

Show some past examples of when it has happened, improvements in technology & changes of energy sources have happened quite often, none of them have caused disaster for the human race so far.

 

Nothing is solved by a gold standard either, it's a crazy myth put forward by people who hoard lots of gold & want to see it rise in value.

 

If we get back to the monetary problems, they're caused by private banks, not the BoE, government, or fiat money.

 

About 97% of the money in the economy isn't real money at all, it's credit, only exists as numbers on a bank's computer. It's not a fixed ratio between cash reserves & credit either, banks lend more in relation to their reserves when they're confident that the economy is doing well & they'll get a return. They lend less & force people to repay loans when they have less confidence. This changes the amount of money available in the economy & amplifies the boom & bust cycle. Because of private banks there is more money available in a boom & less in a bust, they control it all.

 

What about just enforcing a fixed lending ratio for banks & give control of the money supply back to the BoE?

[IAchilleasI]

So, you don't have any counter points & are resorting to insults now? I'm no guardian of the system, just somebody who can think for themselves & doesn't take everything on a "the end is nigh" website at face value. You've failed to supply any credible evidence to counter what's happened throughout history & support your points.

 

I'm afraid you are a self-appointed guardian of this system, else you'd recognise at least one of the many points I've made here and in this thread, given the evidence provided. If you dismiss the evidence, that is your problem not mine.

 

I'm no guardian of the system, just somebody who can think for themselves & doesn't take everything on a "the end is nigh" website at face value.

 

But you seem to be taking the "everything is ok" mantra at face value quite willingly.

 

How long have humans been around? When have we ever run out of energy? When has the global economy ever shrunk due to advances in technology? Advances in technology allow us to do more with less, that's called growth.

 

Do you then consider infinite growth to be viable?

 

Show some past examples of when it has happened, improvements in technology & changes of energy sources have happened quite often, none of them have caused disaster for the human race so far.

 

Your logic is fallacious, because it relies on something needing to have happened in the past for it to take place in the future. If that was true, then nothing would have ever happened in the first place. History can teach us not to repeat our mistakes but it can't teach us not make new ones.

 

Nothing is solved by a gold standard either

 

Completely agree.

 

If we get back to the monetary problems, they're caused by private banks, not the BoE, government, or fiat money.

 

About 97% of the money in the economy isn't real money at all, it's credit, only exists as numbers on a bank's computer. It's not a fixed ratio between cash reserves & credit either, banks lend more in relation to their reserves when they're confident that the economy is doing well & they'll get a return. They lend less & force people to repay loans when they have less confidence. This changes the amount of money available in the economy & amplifies the boom & bust cycle. Because of private banks there is more money available in a boom & less in a bust, they control it all.

 

What about just enforcing a fixed lending ratio for banks & give control of the money supply back to the BoE?

 

All of what you say is true, except that the BoE already controls the money supply, being a central bank, and has private shareholders, we just don't know who they are since they're protected by the official secrets act.

[Longcol]

 

All of what you say is true, except that the BoE already controls the money supply, being a central bank, and has private shareholders, we just don't know who they are since they're protected by the official secrets act.

 

No it hasn't - we did this in a thread 18 months or so ago.

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=593035&highlight=bank+england

[IAchilleasI]

No it hasn't - we did this in a thread 18 months or so ago.

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=593035&highlight=bank+england

 

Yes, my apologies, my statement was pretty vague. The Bank of England isn't privately owned in the traditional sense, but it is effectively serving private interests. Since the majority of the money supply originates from private commercial banks, the Bank of England mostly acts as a regulator and as a lifeline for banks that require rescuing, aka bailouts, and is not obliged to disclose if it proceeds to do so. When the BoE does rescue a private bank, the interest it receives on the loan is smaller than what the government pays on its debts, taken out to refinance the banks in the first place. Not to forget that the individuals that run the bank come from the worldwide commercial banking sector.

 

What defeats me is how is it possible that the BoE can purchase and own government debt when it is government owned anyway. I'd appreciate an explanation for this.