@Moon I think the full cost is hard to ascertain because there are ways to reuse things but stuff is mostly just chucked in a trashcan. Also I think fixing our farming and food distribution is more important than fixing our energy usage. Sadly the decision makers want to fix farming too but in a different way.
@thatguyoverthere I iknow also there's an argument here about cost being assigned by the market but I don't believe the market is sufficient, never have.
@Moon also the current market is distorted by insane inflation and entirely driven by debt instead of value.
I actually think most of our problems are the result of trying to build monolithic highly integrated systems instead of decentralized systems that utilize local resources more which could reduce waste. I don't believe man made carbon is a driving factor for climate change, and I think targeting it is a distraction form more harmful practices that big companies would like to continue. I think pesticides and overuse of fertilizer are way more serious issues that are causing physiological and possibly even psychological damage to all life. I think we justify their usage by saying we grow more food, but then we let tons and tons of food rot every year. Does the surplus growth matter if we can't even get it where it needs to go?
@1iceloops123@Moon one problem is most people think solar and wind are the only way to go, but neither of these are environmentally friendly if you consider the material extraction costs, and both require batteries to smooth out low points. If technologies like biodiesel, wood gassification, and biodigesters were offered as solutions people could produce energy closer to where it's used using existing equipment.
@roboneko@Moon@jeffcliff don't the taxes just repay some debt. Adding a carbon tax doesn't change the budgetary capabilities of legislators since they just go borrow the money anyway. All it does is punish people who can't wash their carbon usage
@jeffcliff@Moon nah a carbon tax is limited to carbon and doesn't necessarily get allocated to fixing anything. in the simplest form it only exists to disincentivize the release of carbon that was trapped in the ground
an environmental externality tax that could only be spent on efforts to remediate those externalities would be a different beast
@jeffcliff@roboneko@Moon you are saying Canada actually only spends money collected as taxes? We are much more carefree down here. Our budget creates new debt and our taxes pay old debt
@jeffcliff@condret@Moon@roboneko that's why I say end the fed. I don't want government borrowing for everything they want to spend money on, but if they are going to do that and make it impossible to repay I don't see any reason to beg for them to take more from me.
@jeffcliff@thatguyoverthere@Moon@roboneko i think this is fine actually. it's not like state debts are a real problem as long as they are debts in their own currency.
you can live somewhere that gets into debt and puts future generations into bondage, i'd rather people here to have no carried debt, not at the municipal, provincial or federal level with only emergencies as exceptions
@xianc78@Moon I was in bookstore a few days ago, and there was a guy there reading The 4th Industrial Revolution by Klaus Schwab and making highlights with intensity. My daughter saw it and said, "do you think he bought that book (or just picked it from the shelf)?" Indeed he didn't look like a guy who returns his shopping carts, but I didn't want to be judgemental with no basis.
@jeffcliff@Moon@roboneko@thatguyoverthere no, this does not put future generations into bondage. Where do you think this money ultimately comes from? It always comes from the central bank, there is nothing the central bank could do to get the money back, as the central bank is owned by the state.
there was a whole generation lost in the 90s here, because we spent the decade paying down the debt of the previous governments, just as we had to do in thew 50s
the federal central bank doesn't care about the provinces, here anyway
but even at the federal level: we are still giving up canadian women to 3rd world dictators because, among other things, we've beggared ourselves via debt
> the total amount of debt needs to increase as the economy grows in order to prevent a deflation
deflation is only really bad if it spirals. inflation can get out of control too. I think the bigger issue is that it incentivizes holding on to cash. a low level of inflation provides a certain set of incentives that are convenient if you want to maximize GDP at all costs
The central money isn't the one lending the money.
What happens is the financial system cuts you from access to it, and other lenders stop lending the government anything. Just like they did in the 50s here. Or they just seize your governments (or citizens) property. Eventually, they'll start just seizing citizens.
@jeffcliff@Moon@roboneko@thatguyoverthere you cannot just simply seize the government's property, the state has the monopoly on power, neither can the financial cut the government off. And why would they? Every banker/economist understands that in modern capitalism the total amount of debt needs to increase as the economy grows in order to prevent a deflation. It's quite convenient if the governement creates most of these debts, as the government will always pay back to private lenders. Meanwhile it is true, that the central bank in most countries does not lend money to the government directly, all money originally comes from the central bank. Usually there are 1 or 2 intermediary banks involved in the process, but in the end all of the money comes from the central bank. Central banks have the exclusive right to print money.
I'm not sure, if we could compare the 50s with today's fiat money system, given that bretton woods agreement active back then
@jeffcliff@Moon@condret@thatguyoverthere I think this thread is confusing bonds sold to private parties with "debt" that exists purely on paper due to money being printed. the feds don't *have* to owe anyone interest if the legislature doesn't want them to
the obvious issue with printing "too much" money is excessive inflation. what constitutes "too much" is open to interpretation but I think most would agree that we're well past anything that might resemble it
> It might create a last-man-standing situation, where everybody lives in poverty except a very few rich ones.
if we're talking about fiat, if and when that actually happens just print yourself out of that hole. but I'm not sure it's a significantly different failure mode than the ultrawealthy lending out and collecting rent. at the end of the day value within society is ultimately relative
@roboneko@Moon@jeffcliff@thatguyoverthere yes, i agree. I think deflation getting out of hand is worse than inflation, because i believe the accumulation incentives that you've mentioned to be more destructive. It might create a last-man-standing situation, where everybody lives in poverty except a very few rich ones. (this is why i dislike cryptocurrencies, i see high deflationary potential in them)
> The promise of something for nothing will never lose its luster. MMT should be viewed as a form of political propaganda rather than any kind of real economics or public policy. And like all propaganda, it must be fought with appeals to reality. MMT, where deficits don't matter, is an unreal place.
yeah : most households don't have people from the big banks continually undermining their ability to make decisions through bribery and "techno experts"
@jeffcliff@condret@Moon@roboneko don't we though? I mean maybe it goes the long way around, but we are affected when government makes decisions that are affected by bribery and "techno experts" as you say.
@jeffcliff@Moon@roboneko@thatguyoverthere you can believe in mmt and still go for austerity. mmt at no point advises to print money. It doesn't draw that conclusion. It is up to you what you conclude from it. You could believe in mmt and still think that deficit spending is bad per se, or you take the keynesian route and say "everything we can do, we can afford"
or you shut the central bank down and teach people how to replace it with decentralized, global systems
> It is up to you what you conclude from it.
i'm not going to conclude anything from it because I reject it. But there's a group of people who *don't* and they are increasingly mobilized, as an agregeore. And that has its own interests, and policies that are likely to erupt from it.
MMT isn't soley descriptive - it carries with it implications, and with that policy. It is an set of operational hypotheses. And yeah: As you can see MMT has opponents on the right and the left.