"Banks create money out of nothing" - Guardian

[love detective]

the crux of the OP has nothing to do with central banks - you affirmed that it was

Even the idiot Jazz confirmed that you were wrong in this

deal with it fuckwit

 

[Dr Jon]

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question in post #269:

Where did this money come from???

They created it out of thin air, didn't they?

 

[Falcon]

Keep it real? Lol, you're so hip, But you are also incapable of defending your assertions.

Well, so you keep saying. But you seem to be unable to give any examples of assertions that need defending, while tolerating and making festoons of your own.

The fact that you wrote needing an arrow to show "Marx born here" rather implies you dont really understand what capitalism even is.

It does? Or is it rather something you would need to be true, and are constructing the slenderest strawman argument to assert?

Now, you have to try and show how energy is the determinant of wealth - not just a contributory factor, but the determining one.

I don't have to try and do anything. Your task is to explain how theories evolved under one very particular set of conditions might be expected to have any explanatory power under reversal of those conditions.

The efforts by economists and other social "scientists" to decouple economics from energy are enormously and deeply flawed, in a way and to a degree which is almost inconceivable to someone who has a background in the natural sciences, or who believes in generating truths from the use of the scientific method (disclosure: I have qualifications in both, so am fairly well placed to make a judgement).

Turn your statement around, and you get a simple proof by contradiction. Remove energy from economic processes: what economic processes remain viable? Answer - none. The assertion that energy might be merely a contributory factor that has to be explained betrays a pathological attachment to ideology.

I'll go further. We know exactly what level of wealth is sustainable - the level of wealth attainable through the energy accessible by efficient, agrarian societies. And, to return to the thread, the level of debt incurred by this dysfunctional industrial society is far in excess of that which can be sustained by even the most efficient agrarian society.

Now, I'll happily consider any exceptions that you believe contradict that conclusion. I'll also be happy to consider your argument that your philosophies have anything to tell us following the reversal of their most essential (and apparently, for you, unconscious) assumption.

 

[Falcon]

the crux of the OP has nothing to do with central banks - you affirmed that it was

Even the idiot Jazz confirmed that you were wrong in this

deal with it fuckwit

A point which, even if it were true, would bear no relationship to the fact that your speculations on the workings of the financial system bear no relationship with reality, since they neglect the most obvious changing aspect of reality.

 

[Falcon]

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question in post #269:vThey created it out of thin air, didn't they?

You aren't going to get one. What you'll get instead is a farrago of misdirection.

 

[belboid]

Turn your statement around, and you get a simple proof by contradiction. Remove energy from economic processes: what economic processes remain viable? Answer - none. The assertion that energy might be merely a contributory factor that has to be explained betrays a pathological attachment to ideology.

Wholly wrong. You are claiming energy is THE determinant factor, not just one, so you have to show that it is ONLY the removal of energy that would render economic processes unviable. But, to quote LD from earlier:

without the existence of human beings, everything - including monotonic energy contraction - is irrelevant to making money

without the sun not burning itself out, everything - including monotonic energy contraction - is irrelevant to making money

without the big bang, everything - including monotonic energy contraction - is irrelevant to making money

So you cannot, indeed you explicitly refuse to, defend your assertion.

 

[belboid]

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question in post #269:

human labour

 

[Dr Jon]

human labour

 

[butchersapron]

human labour

What is value Dr Jon? Where does it come from?

 

[Falcon]

Wholly wrong. You are claiming energy is THE determinant factor, not just one, so you have to show that it is ONLY the removal of energy that would render economic processes unviable.

Nope. "A" determining factor. Not "THE". The counterclaim - that money can be created by banks irrespective of the state of the energy supply - is not defended by the observation that there may be many other processes besides energy withdrawal that render the process impossible. In fact there are many factors that render economic processes, and the future repayment of debt, unviable - climate change, resource conflict, food depletion, etc. - a point which only strengthens my argument that banks are increasingly creating money from nothing.

As evidence that energy is being withdrawn on a net basis, I can easily cite authoritative institutional data (IEA, EIA, IHS, BP, etc.) to that effect. As evidence that energy is required to create wealth, I observe that economic processes necessitated by wealth creation are inconceivable without energy, that authoritative institutional data showing historical gross, net, and per-capita energy consumption has risen monotonically in any time period relevant to this discussion, and that neither capitalism nor its rivals have ever been observed outside of conditions of monotonic energy expansion.

 

[Dr Jon]

What is value Dr Jon? Where does it come from?

I'm not a philosopher, but I believe Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance tries to answer this question.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm not a philosopher, but I believe Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance tries to answer this question.

So you're demanding answers to your question but...oh i get it.

 

[Falcon]

human labour

Bringing a commendably fresh perspective to the term "pyramid scheme". But overlooking the fact that over half the world's labour requires hydrocarbon to power the industrial agriculture system that sustains it.

 

[belboid]

Yawn, all you are doing is repeating your assertion. You havent backed it up at all, just stated it in a slightly different way. You're even worse than Jazzzzzz.

 

[love detective]

As evidence that energy is being withdrawn on a net basis, I can easily cite authoritative institutional data (IEA, EIA, IHS, BP, etc.) to that effect. As evidence that energy is required to create wealth, I observe that economic processes necessitated by wealth creation are inconceivable without energy, that authoritative institutional data showing historical gross, net, and per-capita energy consumption has risen monotonically in any time period relevant to this discussion, and that neither capitalism nor its rivals have ever been observed outside of conditions of monotonic energy expansion.

I have evidence that the sun is burning up and will one day obliterate life on earth (BBC, ITV, Channel 5, CBeebies, etc..).

As evidence that the existence of the sun is required to create wealth, I observe that economic processes necessitated by wealth creation are inconceivable without the sun

therefore any analysis that fails to take into account the existence of the sun in their theories is not going to explain anything of use to anyone anywhere, therefore they are worse than useless

 

[love detective]

A point which, even if it were true, would bear no relationship to the fact that your speculations on the workings of the financial system bear no relationship with reality, since they neglect the most obvious changing aspect of reality.

the burning up of the sun?

 

[belboid]

I have seen evidence that land is being used up and becoming a scarcer and scarcer resource. Without land how could we produce anything?

I have seen evidence that food is being used up and cannot be produced sustainably any more. And without food....

etc etc etc

 

[butchersapron]

All physical things/processes/etc that happend/happen/happening/will happen are apolitical. Just a series of things. One after another.

 

[Falcon]

Yawn, all you are doing is repeating your assertion. You havent backed it up at all, just stated it in a slightly different way. You're even worse than Jazzzzzz.

Hilarious. I've stated that your theories were hatched under conditions of expanding energy supply, backing it up with the observation that energy supply has, indeed, expanded. I've stated that the fundamental assumption your theory depends on is undergoing reversal, backing it up with the observation that the energy supply is, indeed, contracting.

How many ways do you think it can be stated?

More interestingly, how long to do think you can avoid the fact that your position that your theories can withstand reversal is itself merely an assertion that you haven't even begun to back up, beyond the comical notions that economic processes currently underpinning 7 billion people and 700 trillion of unsupported debt can be maintained without energy, apparently through human labour?

I had hoped that one of the only serious rivals to capitalism would have had something material to offer in defence of itself. Apparently, you aren't the guy for the job.

 

[Falcon]

All physical things/processes/etc that happend/happen/happening/will happen are apolitical. Just a series of things. One after another.

Butchers, you do understand that evidence that processes are political is not evidence that processes can be rescued by the political, don't you? Only, you appear to be trying to make some kind of point, but the point isn't terribly clear.

 

[butchersapron]

Identifying the processes that have lead to the purported situation is surely a key part of dealing with that situation? When someone suggests that the situation just sort of happened then i think i'll look to others for guidance.

 

[belboid]

Hilarious. I've stated that your theories were hatched under conditions of expanding energy supply, backing it up with the observation that energy supply has, indeed, expanded. I've stated that the fundamental assumption your theory depends on is undergoing reversal, backing it up with the observation that the energy supply is, indeed, contracting.

Dear god, you really are worse than Jazzzzzzzz. No one has denied the fact that energy supply expanded. No one has argued about the second point. They are not the point.

The point is that you cannot show that energy and economic expansion are inherently and permanently and unavoidably, consistently, linked. And THAT is your argument. So make it or shut up.

 

[butchersapron]

Butchers, you do understand that evidence that processes are political is not evidence that processes can be rescued by the political, don't you? Only, you appear to be trying to make some kind of point, but the point isn't terribly clear.

So, nothing can be done politically. Nothing can be done by changing social relations. Now what?

 

[Falcon]

The point is that you cannot show that energy and economic expansion are inherently and permanently and unavoidably, consistently, linked. And THAT is your argument. So make it or shut up.

Well, you have ignored it (of necessity), which is a rather different case.

You are asserting (although you probably don't realise it) that economic expansion - which is to say, the expansion of wealth - which is to say, the expansion of the matter/energy system - is capable of being permanently and consistently decoupled from the expansion of the energy system itself (indeed - rendered immune to the imminent and rapid contraction of the energy system).

So you are saying that the energy consumption per unit of economic activity can be driven to arbitrarily low levels, asymptotically to zero - in other words, you are arguing for the existence of a perpetual motion machine, and the abolition of the laws of thermodynamics which are hard wired into the operation of the universe. Nice one. (This is what I meant when I say economics gets embarrassing when you have even a passing familiarity with physical reality).

If you aren't, then you are admitting there is some upper limit to economic expansion, governed by the energy horizon at which your economic system can no longer process resources of successively poorer grade at an energy profit. Which is to say, the falsification of your thesis that energy and economic expansion are NOT linked, and acceptance of the argument that, if your energy supply contracts, so must your economy. In which case, you are offering a variation of St Anselm's Prayer: "Lord, make me chaste. But not yet".

There is a system which is sustainable at the level of energy provided by human labour, sustained by the low grade energy which can be extracted from the environment via real time, areal energy systems. But that system is not compatible with the money creation processes being defended by your chums in this thread.

 

[Falcon]

So, nothing can be done politically. Nothing can be done by changing social relations. Now what?

Different argument, butchers. The (untenable) argument in this thread is for the sustainability of certain money creation processes.

 

[butchersapron]

You don't sound very interested in this (either issue as you see it - one issue to all sane types) at all really.

 

[belboid]

Well, you have ignored it (of necessity), which is a rather different case.

You are asserting (although you probably don't realise it) that economic expansion - which is to say, the expansion of wealth - which is to say, the expansion of the matter/energy system - is capable of being permanently and consistently decoupled from the expansion of the energy system itself (indeed - rendered immune to the imminent and rapid contraction of the energy system).

So you are saying that the energy consumption per unit of economic activity can be driven to arbitrarily low levels, asymptotically to zero - in other words, you are arguing for the existence of a perpetual motion machine, and the abolition of the laws of thermodynamics which are hard wired into the operation of the universe. Nice one. (This is what I meant when I say economics gets embarrassing when you have even a passing familiarity with physical reality).

I have argued absolutely nothing of the kind, the fact that you have to make this nonsense up shows the weakness of your supposed case.

If you aren't, then you are admitting there is some upper limit to economic expansion, governed by the energy horizon at which your economic system can no longer process resources of successively poorer grade at an energy profit. Which is to say, the falsification of your thesis that energy and economic expansion or NOT linked. In which case, you are offering a variation of St Anselm's Prayer: "Lord, make me chaste. But not yet".

followed immediately by the false dichotomy. Poor show Malthus

 

[love detective]

Different argument, butchers. The (untenable) argument in this thread is for the sustainability of certain money creation processes.

where has this argument been made and by whom?

 

[Falcon]

You don't sound very interested in this (either issue as you see it - one issue to all sane types) at all really.

To be fair, it is hard to sound interested and defend against an incessant barrage of muppit/fuckwit/Malthusian/etc.

 

[belboid]

perhaps you should learn how to make a sensible, non-malthusian, argument then