ralfy

See also the CBC denial machine documentary: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/ One clip from the feature:

This does not disprove my argument. Something can be deemed "to have value" even if it does not. Even though money can be perceived as valuable, it is still debt. Unfortunately, that argument works both ways. As seen today, we have an unregulated global derivatives market with a notional value of $1.5 quadrillion. The 2008 crash "only" involved around $1 trillion in subprime lending, leading to over $30 trillion vaporized worldwide. Governments struggled to create even more debt to counter that threat, and it didn't even work as the global economy is still in crisis. To recap, that crash involved only $1 trillion out of over $1.5 quadrillion (notional value) in unregulated derivatives. So much for "flexibility." Especially when the same "shocks" involve the same fiat currency! And the economies that are currently performing better "in this great recession" are not doing so because they can "inflate and deflate the value of their currency" but because large amounts of "hot money" are entering their system. A gold standard will not solve our problems because a global capitalist economy requires ever-increasing capital, and on a scale that even a so-called money multiplier can achieve. That's why in 2007 US M2 reached not $400 billion given reserves of $40 billion but $7.25 trillion, many times greater than what fractional reserve banking allows. There's your flexibility for you. Typical neo-liberal garbage, i.e., measuring economic growth through purchasing power. How to achieve that? Create more money, which is easy to do without a gold standard or banks following any reserve requirements. I am not calling for a gold standard, but I very much question your incredibly naive view of the current situation which actually stems for the same "flexibility" you espouse! And the absence of a gold standard leads to success, with the current crisis some minor occurrence that we hope will go away as long as we create more credit? A gold standard will never be sustainable in a global capitalist system that requires increasing levels of credit, and increasing levels of credit will not lead to some idealistic adjustment of credit but one crash after another. Complete and utter nonsense, as if you can create more wives, dried fish, or colorful beads and feathers in the same way that money can be created today. More nonsense. Let's see you argue that dried fish has no "intrinsic value" if that's the only thing you have to eat. Your last paragraph contradicts your previous one! Ultimately, your wavering stance on this issue (e.g., your first paragraph shows that we give value to what has no value, as pointed out in your second-to-the-last paragraph, but which we still see as valuable, as seen in your last paragraph, which really doesn't matter because we can easily "inflate" and "deflate" the level of credit--which isn't really true--but in case we don't, then we can go back to trading things which have no intrinsic value but which we think have intrinsic value) doesn't disprove my argument: "I would not bother looking at GDP given the use of money, which is essentially debt." What should we look at, then? Not a gold standard, but "Another point to consider is that a higher standard of living may lead to more resource consumption which offsets any savings due to lower birth rates.<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(243, 249, 246);"><br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(243, 249, 246);">"For example, the U.S. has one of the most advanced economies in the world, but it achieved that at very high costs. It has less than 5 pct of the world's economy but has to consume almost a quarter of world oil production. It has over 250 million passenger vehicles, or almost one for every adult citizen.<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(243, 249, 246);"><br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(243, 249, 246);">"In general, something like 12 pct of the world's population, likely part of a global middle class, are responsible for a significant portion of resource consumption." Thus, we should look at availability of resources in light of consumption. And we can't argue that over-consumption is normal simply because the economy of a country (and again, an economy driven by money which is essentially debt) is large. Are you getting my point now? A country like the U.S. can consume resources at significant rates because its currency is used worldwide for trade. The level of credit has been increasing considerably the past three decades because of deregulation and financial speculation, not to mention consumer spending connected to resource consumption. In such a case, a gold standard will never work because the U.S. needs lots of credit to consume more, and so does a growing global middle class. And your contradictory views of the matter (money has value and doesn't have value at the same time) does not in any way contradict what I said about money as debt and money being used for increased resource consumption. Thus, the claim that resource consumption rates of a country should be "in line" with the size of its economy is complete garbage. FWIW, I'd like to add that I don't support Austrian economics or Keynesian views (e.g., the hopelessly naive view that credit levels can be adjusted easily). The economy has to be studied in another way, i.e., not by seeing it in monetary terms but by looking at availability of resources, such as resource consumption per capita or ecological footprint vs. biocapacity. That is why I find the argument that resource consumption levels should be justified by economic size as based on incredible levels of naivete, as if we can produce resources as easily as we produce credit. What nonsense.

Apples or sexual favors may be seen as units of exchange or as a physical good (for the first) or a service (for the second). Money can only be seen as a unit of exchange, but that doesn't make it the same as apples or sexual favors. Money is not debt as long as it is backed by something that is seen as valuable, such as gold. That was the case for the U.S. dollar until the gold standard was dropped. (Research on "Nixon Shock" for details.) Thus, money has been essentially a promissory note (hence, debt) for decades. It has no intrinsic value other than a guarantee by the government that it can be exchanged for goods and services. That is why when governments fall apart....

Yes, I meant 5 pct of the world's population. And I would not bother looking at GDP given the use of money, which is essentially debt.

The U.S. total debt and deficit are due ultimately to the use of the dollar as a world currency. We can see this in light of the ff. points: The U.S. moved away from the gold standard because it had to create more credit to support police action in Vietnam, and that in turn was likely connected to the need to secure resources in Indochina and to block Communists. The peak in domestic oil production also did not help. To counter this, the U.S. formed agreements with Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members, leading to the rise of the petro-dollar. Not surprisingly, one trade deficit after another followed from the early 1970s onward. Reagan's reaction was to embark on increased borrowing and spending made possible through deregulation. The result was increased borrowing and spending across the board--government, corporations, households--from 1981 to the present. The military and covert activity were used to prop up the petro-dollar by blocking other countries that wanted to move away from it, including Iraq and Libya, and now Iran. Citizens supported this arrangement--war costs passed on to national debt, easy credit from banks, deregulation allowing Wall Street to profit, and tax cuts--by voting for one administration after another that promoted the same scheme: use the military to prop up the petro-dollar and encourage borrowing and spending, especially given an economy partly dependent on consumer spending and even war costs partly funded by foreign loans. Meanwhile, the government continued to work for Wall Street.

Probably not due to the complexity of human thought.

Another point to consider is that a higher standard of living may lead to more resource consumption which offsets any savings due to lower birth rates. For example, the U.S. has one of the most advanced economies in the world, but it achieved that at very high costs. It has less than 5 pct of the world's economy but has to consume almost a quarter of world oil production. It has over 250 million passenger vehicles, or almost one for every adult citizen. In general, something like 12 pct of the world's population, likely part of a global middle class, are responsible for a significant portion of resource consumption.

Given demand destruction and economic problems in OECD countries coupled with the opposite for BRIC and emerging markets, it might be reversed.

You can check results of tests by visiting sites like AV-Comparatives.

From what I remember, the NAS discusses this point in its final report. You may visit the "America's Climate Choices" website to read it.

John Taylor Gatto discusses similar points in his website and in various essays.

You can look up issues such as EROEI rather than prices. For example, "The Energy Trap" http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/ That is, look at the energy and resources required to produce energy from a given source, then see how look it will take to make up for the energy and resource cost. Also, don't forget the need for petrochemicals, availability of resources such as oil (according to the IEA, conventional production peaked in 2006), etc. Finally, there's also the phenomenon in free market capitalist systems of using non-utilized resources or energy to make more profits. Thus, efficiency may lead to more consumption.

Likely not if the future will bring about de-industrialization due to a debt-ridden global economy, the threat of a resource crunch, and long-term effects of environmental damage, including global warming.

Same as the Presidents before him: deregulation with heavy borrowing and spending to prop up the economy.

This type of regulation is inevitable given debt-ridden economies coupled with the threat of a resource crunch.

What I mean is, we are probably both rational and irrational. Sometimes, we act based on logic, and sometimes based on emotion, belief, a hunch, etc.

Because of the human condition, both will always be in tension with each other, and neither will win.

Prob. best to adhere to the UN declaration of human rights, which supports both freedom of speech and of worship.

Definitely, as scientists are human.