https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYEevmuxMgU
And in many cases are suppressed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3jvkNRCY2s&feature=youtu.be

Reply ↓

rogerglewis
on February 15, 2020 at 11:56 am said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
https://youtu.be/P3jvkNRCY2s I made this video available with English Subtitles the original version in English is not available anywhere on the internet?

rogerglewis on February 15, 2020 at 12:10 pm said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Reply ↓

Money has no intrinsic worth, but commands value only as ‘claim’ on the products of the real economy. Its only function is as a medium of exchange.

Fulfilling this function requires that two preconditions are met:

1. There is something for which money can be exchanged

2. The kind of money in question is accepted by all parties as a medium of exchange

Money (in any form) given to someone adrift in a lifeboat has no value, because it fails the first test.

Somebody arriving from Mars with pockets full of Martian Zogs would find his money useless, because it fails the second test.

Therefore, there is no monetary solution to the deterioration in prosperity caused by a fall in the supply of surplus energy.

The authorities do not understand (or, at any rate, admit) this. They are using monetary manipulation to prop up inflated asset prices. The only reason why they haven’t been called on this is that we cannot monetise asset ownership, i.e. sell all stocks, bonds and properties and turn them into cash.

In the future, the use of money manipulation might be extended into, for example:

A. Financing government spending as the revenue base erodes

B. Subsidising fossil fuel production

C. Subsidising investment in renewables

D. Helping the victims of falling prosperity

ANY of these uses would be inflationary, quite possibly to the point at which the credibility of fiat currencies is destroyed.

This means that the only way to achieve objectives A-D without destroying the currency has to involve redistribution.

Reply ↓

rogerglewis
on February 15, 2020 at 3:41 pm said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Redistribution of What to who and by which means?
Energy is Ubiquitous, yet Value is an abstract concept and there are experiential values which exceed their Energy input where an abstract value, such as a monetary unit is allowed to reflect the Market determined price.
The fact is that there are different levels of needs and wants and over an above fundamental survival requirements, Say 2500 Calories a day including embodied energy for Shelter and dietary requirements.
What are the absolute bands of energy requirements, how much energy is Wasted and how much-embodied energy can be re-cycled that is currently wasted all have to factor into any ongoing Energy Based Distribution system and energy-based system for determining and energy-based into of account?

What is the problem with having a different type of Currency, why does Destruction of the existing unfit for purpose system have to be taken as read?

There have been successive efforts since the Nixon shock to replace the current international FInance model, that we are moving to a Multi-Polar world seems an inescapable conclusion, with all the potential problems this represents for the Dollar centric hegemony.

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it is always a good maxim but if a new design is called for to replace an obsolete system then everything is on the table.

I personally reject your four-point example and the inevitability of your conclusion Tim.

The world has tremendous potential as does the industrial capacity and also cultural and technological potentials of current technology. Of course, there are fundamental changes which need to be made The single biggest problem is the mispricing inherent in the financialised late-stage capitalism which has morphed already into Fascism, otherwise known as Neo-Liberalism.

Pierre Joseph Proudhon proposed a reform to banking which was quite simply to abolish the private monopoly on the creation of Currency as debt at interest. Peter Kropotkin describes Prouhdond Simple idea and its effect as follows,

https://archive.org/details/PeterKropotkinEntryOnanarchismFromTheEncyclopdiaBritannica/page/n1/mode/2up
Now Proudhon advocated a society without government, and
used the word Anarchy to describe it. Proudhon repudiated,
as is known, all schemes of Communism, according to which
mankind would be driven into communistic monasteries or
barracks, as also all the schemes of state or state-aided socialism
which were advocated by Louis Blanc and the Collectivists. When
he proclaimed in his first memoir on property that ” Property
is theft,” he meant only property in its present, Roman-law,
sense of ” right of use and abuse ” ; in property-rights, on the other
hand, understood in the limited sense of possession, he saw the
best protection against the encroachments of the state. At the
same time he did not want violently to dispossess the present
owners of land, dwelling-houses, mines, factories and so on. He
preferred to attain the same end by rendering capital incapable
of earning interest; and this he proposed to obtain by means of
a national bank, based on the mutual confidence of all those who
are engaged in production, who would agree to exchange among
themselves their produces at cost-value, by means of labour
cheques representing the hours of labour required to produce
every given commodity. Under such a system, which Proudhon
described as ” Mutuellisme,” all the exchanges of services would be
strictly equivalent. Besides, such a bank would be enabled to
lend money without interest, levying only something like 1 %,
or even less, for covering the cost of administration. Every one
being thus enabled to borrow the money that would be required
to buy a house, nobody would agree to pay any more a yearly
rent for the use of it. A general ” social liquidation ” would
thus be rendered easy, without violent expropriation. The same
applied to mines, railways, factories and so on.

In a society of this type the state would be useless. The chief
relations between citizens would be based on free agreement and
regulated by mere account keeping. The contests might be
settled by arbitration. A penetrating criticism of the state and
all possible forms of government, and a deep insight into all
economic problems, were well-known characteristics of Proudhon’s
work.