The moment I see a negative interest rate, I will be at an atm withdrawing all my money. Oh, you want to "hold" my money safe for me, give it away for loans, and charge me for it? Fuck you. Alternatively, I'd like to borrow ten million dollars. Now I'm starting to see the love for the idea of bitcoin. This idea, that you should punish saving, push investments, and ensure that a person living a normal life shouldn't be able to do so without having a nearly empty bank account is going to strip the stability of people who would normally be saving up for hard times, and spending extra in those hard times. The idea that you will go so far as to actively punish, to force people to not use banks, or lose their money, to constantly take a percentage of the average person's money away, it's absurd, it's bullshit, and it shouldn't be happening. This is what happens when power becomes too centralized. People who think they know what is best start to, and will end up, screwing everyone over based on smart-in-theory ideas that aren't actually complete or ideal.So Sweden may become the first country where its citizens may have to accept negative interest rates (probably in the form of higher bank charges or fees) or be forced to spend their money in order to “save” it from those rates.
Well, if money = power, this centralization you speak of seems to be quite baked into the system, doesn't it? I read the situation quite differently. As the economic (and especially monetary) paradigm we've been operating under for the last few hundred years once again tears itself apart, the measures undertaken to keep the whole thing together can't help but become ever more extreme - and absurd, really. Maybe unleashing capital globally in the manner we've seen since the 80s wasn't such a smart move, after all. This pattern of straw fire boom (and extreme consolidation of wealth) followed by catastrophic bust certainly isn't anything new. Usually, a partial reset has been achieved through big wars. Kind of hard to pull off without the risk of things spiraling way out of control nowadays, though - the option clearly seems to be on the table as far as I can tell from following the daily news. Would be quite interesting to see how it plays out this time. Hell, might even lead to some positive change (New deal style) after all. Unfortunately, I've been on a bit of a climate change information binge for the last few days. Having read a lot and listened to quite competent people in the field describing their troubles dealing with the certainty of impending cataclysmic disaster, I'm not sure that the whole monetary circus really matters all that much, anymore.This is what happens when power becomes too centralized.
Except this negative income is part of an attempt to make cash go away, it isn't a "natural reaction" to things, it's a result of people meddling in things to "improve" the economy in false ways. False, having a global economy connects economies, has gone a long way towards eradicating poverty, and has raised standards of wealth across the world. Reducing taxes on the rich, allowing super PACS, and so on, are what we shouldn't have done in the 80's. Except it really isn't, thanks to that globalization, nations not only fear nuclear war, but cutting themselves off from the world cripples their economies. Look at what has happened to Russia.As the economic (and especially monetary) paradigm we've been operating under for the last few hundred years once again tears itself apart, the measures undertaken to keep the whole thing together can't help but become ever more extreme - and absurd, really.
Maybe unleashing capital globally in the manner we've seen since the 80s wasn't such a smart move, after all.
the option clearly seems to be on the table as far as I can tell from following the daily news.
Right, I get it. Great success. Sure, that rise in private wealth (as always overwhelmingly favouring the elites) may have been built on the backs of millions effectively being treated as industrial slaves and the effects on the environment have been catastrophic - but hey, "raised standards of wealth". Yeah, that's kind of like saying that a monarchy would be a great way to run things if only it didn't rely so much on the king not abusing his position of power. Yeah, maybe, but that's kind of the point. Just like capitalism unleashed leading to plutocrats influencing legislation in their favour is not just some weird coincidence. Who gives a fuck once the economic system begins imploding for real, anyway? War never stopped being wildly profitable, a great way to distract populations from domestic issues and generally a nice method of turning saturated markets into booming (re-)building opportunities. Sure, MAD still is a thing and I don't expect any WW2 style full scale land invasions. Don't need those for a good war, though. I'm entirely fed up with the whole growth paradigm. It's a scam we've all bought into. Have fun with those rising standards of wealth. Meanwhile, the indicators showing that limitless growth on a finite planet, based on cheap (and toxic) energy, was a ridiculous idea to begin with keep getting harder to ignore. I'm sure those who still buy into the capitalist story at this point are going to continue to do so anyway. Growth of production or GDP or median wealth? Screw the growth paradigm. This lunacy is threatening our survival as a species. Success isn't growth of material wealth, success is still being around to argue about this 20, 50 or 100 years from now , as a species. If that means drastically changing our definitions of economic success, maybe to be based on "not fucking up our ecological niche" instead of "racing towards the cliff faster", I'm kind of all for that. Assuming it isn't too late anyway, which it well may be, in which case... party on, I guess.Reducing taxes on the rich, allowing super PACS, and so on, are what we shouldn't have done in the 80's.
Except it really isn't, thanks to that globalization, nations not only fear nuclear war, but cutting themselves off from the world cripples their economies. Look at what has happened to Russia.
Those industrial slaves chose to do what they did, and their only other option was life on a farm. Do we just magically give them all first world lifestyles? Do we just expect nations to have random wealth with no stages between? The US had a similar stage in it's own development, and China will soon see it's consumer culture driving more regulations and so on. And that wealth growth, even if it favors the elite, has helped the poor as well. Could it be better? Yes. Could there be less inequality? Yes. However, we are better today, because of globalization, than we would be without it, and we should be happy for that fact. Again, GDP increases come with environmental increases in time. China as a wealthy nation will soon realize how important the environment is, and will have an economy powerful enough to make the technology, the investments, required to preserve it. Horses pollute a hell of a lot more than cars do, wood fires pollute more than electric heaters. Unless you want to kill off half of humanity, progress into a first world nation is better in the long run. Voters elected Reagan. People believed, and many still do believe, in the idea of "trickle down economics". Nothing has failed to respect the views of the people, and the consistent election of people who say "we need to increase taxes on the rich", the popularity of people like Sanders, shows that the system continues to respect the views of the people. Capitalism replaced the system of kings and lords, you have to remember. Inequality under capitalism is far better than inequality under any system we had up to that date. All other systems have consistently shown to not be as efficient. Even places like Sweden, who are very socialist, are testament to this. The thousands, millions, of people who lose their livelihoods, cannot feed their family, and possibly lose their lives as a result? War results in reduced wealth when you look at the net picture. The things you say here border on conspiracy theories and similar bullshit. People were predicting the end of growth before the industrial revolution, they predicted it during it, and after it. We predicted it at the invention of the nuke, and when we thought the oil was going to run out. Here you are predicting it due to global warming, or finite resources feeding "infinite" growth. Growth is not driven only by resources, it's driven primarily by energy in the modern day. With new energy sources being discovered, we can do more and more with what we have available. Growth can continue for quite some time given innovation. "We will run out of food!" was a silly statement in a world where food was about to become nearly infinite. "We will run out of copper" was a silly statement when the world was about to start using fiber for it's connections. "We will run out of oil" was a silly statement for a world about to discover oil sands and other sources of oil at higher prices. "We will run out of possible carbon emissions" is going to look silly in a world where green energy overtakes and outdoes fossil fuel based energy. There was a time in the US where rain was as acidic as acid. Not too long later, we made scrubbers and fixed the problem. It's a long standing pattern, older than either of us have been alive, and I really doubt you have the knowledge to say this pattern is set to end. So, yes, I will enjoy the infinite growth, I will like my ipods, and my laptops. I will live my life happy and free of guilt. Meanwhile, you are using all these technologies, all these great innovations, while preaching doom and advocating change. Be that change, go move into a tiny apartment, use minimal to no electricity, powered lights, AC, and so on, use public transport, and reduce your impact as much as possible. But, it's not going to happen, because despite all your words, you do like infinite growth, you do enjoy the modern world, all it's luxury, and despite that it's "unreasonable" for you to take such drastic measures, after all "nobody else does it!" I have a suspicion it's the fact you don't actually believe what you preach that causes you to act as you likely do. After all, if you believed in minimal impact, you wouldn't be wasting valuable resources arguing on a website, you would be out creating change, forming carbon-cheap success-maximizing relationships with other real people in the real world at every opportunity. You aren't. Success is defined by each and every individual, and not something you can impose on others.Sure, that rise in private wealth (as always overwhelmingly favouring the elites) may have been built on the backs of millions effectively being treated as industrial slaves
effects on the environment have been catastrophic
Yeah, that's kind of like saying that a monarchy would be a great way to run things if only it didn't rely so much on the king not abusing his position of power
Just like capitalism unleashed leading to plutocrats
Who gives a fuck once the economic system begins imploding for real, anyway?
War never stopped being wildly profitable, a great way to distract populations from domestic issues and generally a nice method of turning saturated markets into booming (re-)building opportunities.
Meanwhile, the indicators showing that limitless growth on a finite planet, based on cheap (and toxic) energy, was a ridiculous idea to begin with
Success isn't growth of material wealth, success is still being around to argue about this 20, 50 or 100 years from now
Holy shit, I don't even know where to begin. We disagree so fundamentally that I doubt we can have a meaningful conversation about this, especially since you decided to make wild assumptions about how I live or what I do apart from posting at hubski in an effort to discredit my position. Not going to continue a discussion with someone who acts like that. Been there, done that. Have a nice life.