NotRexButCaesar wrote: ↑
Sun Apr 04, 2021 10:02 pm
More helpful than "you're stupid, look it up" would be some example of a situation where you go from less dollars to more dollars
I am aware of fractional reserve banking. I count debt as "negative dollars": the bank loans you 1$ and -1$.
I would have choosen ignorant rather than stupid to sum up my aggressive answer. Those things are quite complex and not understanding it after looking it up wouldn't be necessarily sign of stupidity;not quite as triggering as saying stuff that are very not true out of what appears to be ignorance. (imo). However some people learn by having hypothesis on everything and then update their belief when something's wrong. But that take the time to do some research and saying you don't have it means you either don't care or are unable to, none of which convey a tremendous appeal to the idea of spending time to organise some written thoughts for you.
A simplified example where you go from less dollar to more dollar would be when you go to the bank to take a loan to pay for medical fees that would allow you to continue working.
There is forseable interest to perceive if you can be cured since you'd continue working and you will get paid.
The bank then will write on your account the amount of money you requested.
They become your creditor, that amount is written as a debt you owe to them.
Congrats money has been created.
They did not need to have that money in the first place to lend it.
Now there's more money than immediatly before.
When you pay back that money, the bank write off the debt on their book.
Money has been destroyed.
The monetary mass, the amount of money, with that particular view on the topic, is just the lag between when people borrowed and when they pay back.
If you lower the interest rate , then more things enter the category that will generate enough cashflow to pay for the interest. More people borrow, more money is created.
If you increase the interest rate, then less things enter the categary that will generate enough cashflow to pay for the interest. Less people borrow, less money is created.
Money is only created for things that generate immediate interest, spending money for things that don't generate interest means you have money that comes in your pocket from other sources. Like ecology, spending money to save the environment, the planet , the baby seals, your own baby too , who can pay people to do something about it ? who will pay people to do something about it ? That would be an ever-ending task, that cost huge amount of money, for not immediate cash in return that would allow to pay back the debt associated when the money was created.
Wether it is the way governement's way of financing itself ( and other long-lasting entity) which is roughly the bond system and/or the indivual/family way of financing things BOTH seem to require the same mechanism of constant growth.
again that is quite far from the climate change topic as the title says, that's an off-topic in an off-topic subject already from a random stranger on the internet, for what it's worth you can look it up on more serious sources as it's the best way to make sure i'm not saying out loud an wild hypothesis of my own as you did
the part where i say it's responsible for the inability to take in account the climate necessity maybe lack of nuances as it's not the only cause but that is definitly a wild hypothesis of my own, but not only
the part where i say money is created out of thin air to generate interest, this just describing an old system, the federal reserve of the united states of america but also the european central bank are presently operating under this mode, so is the world bank and the internationnal monetary fund. They have other ways of explaining it that include the whole "why they do it this way". that's interesting on its own, but my point was that with the way money is created, there is a need for constant growth which seem incompatible with the non-extensive planet we all share.
on a side note, that relate to why i feel you can't expect solutions for adaption to human-induced climate-change from governement, industries , law-makers , and so-on, that's not what they do. their purpose is to make a system function and try to perfect it, but that same system in its status doesn't include the previously mentionned mission : not ruining the environment. It is even (imo) incompatible with the other missions it has : improving living conditions of people who think it means consuming more things.
If people keeps the same mentality about consumerism a government/company/ngo that would want to effectively adress ecologic problem would be helpless or authoritarian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloroflu ... Regulation
Yes there was a CFC ban, when you look at how much time and effort it took and the results, it doesn't appear likely than the same method could be used to the larger scale it would require to be effective on a the also larger scale that is the the whole climate. While not buying a refrigirator is a very simple decision to make as an individual. If many people make that decision, it then make sense to develop other things to make up for the annoyance of not having a refrigirator. ( AND you could still ban them that's not exclusive).