Those who don’t have the resources to benefit from a global economy are being left behind.
source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCQaNdbRMWw published on Sep 27, 2014.
This is a rough transcript of the above video that you should store on your offline-harddisk just in case youtube decides to delete it.
Universities and wast majority of the population and academics all have a blind spot – we have a blind spot on the domain of money.
this blind spots consists of 3 levels/layers:
- 1st Level/Layer) is very old 5000 years old: Distinction between value systems in a patriarchal and a Matrifocal society society.
- All patriarchal societies in history have always imposed a single currency with positives interest rates – top down – it is actually an extraction device and we still have that.
- All societies that honor feminine values (Matrifocal societies like Egypt – or central middle ages) use several currencies – an ecosystem of currencies – some of these currencies which are identical to the patriarchal one’s are used for long-distance-trade.
- more sophisticated: the have “demurage” – a negative interest rate – which is a penalty in keeping and storing money – so it becomes a pure medium of exchange – not at all a store of value – you would be crazy to store a value when there is a penalty in keeping.
- 2nd Level/Layer) about 100 years old:
- All fields of human sciences including economics but also sociology, anthropology have all completely polarized between capitalism and communism – as two poles of interpretation of how to organize a modern or industrial society.
- That polarization has created a tension on everything that is different between them – there are millions of books about what is different between capitalism and communism – there are zero books that study
- what they (capitalism and communism) have in common – blind spot – that is:
- the use of a singular currency, on the national level, created by bank-debt, with interest.
- i would add: they both failed on preventing corruption
- differences are:
- in communism / soviet system: the banks were owned by the government
- in capitalism – the governments only own the banks when the banks fall apart
- … the rest is the same.
- 3rd Level/Layer): The Academic BlindSpot
- try to publish an article in the quarterly Journal of American Economics on questioning the money-system – no way you get it published in this “prestigious” journal – it is locked.
- i have no problems with economics using mathematics – but what you have is the evidence and the proof – that the mathematics they use is wrong – the mathematical model is wrong since the 19th century – we haven’t gotten out of it – we are still talking about prices being formed by supply and demand and automatically getting to an equilibrium – in fact – the same product in the same city has very different prices depending on the supermarket and it should not be there – according to that model – so reality is proofing us – that this is a very abstract way of looking at reality that does not fit the way economics really is.
When you do an open system – then the model that we are proposing which is a complex flow network (like in any natural ecosystem) in which money circulates is the valid one – and we have the proof from thousands of examples of natural ecosystems that this is not stable – unless you put diversity and inter-connectivity within a particular range.
We need to rethink – which mathematics are used and which theoretical framework is being used – which just requires rethinking the entire economic field – which is of course very exciting – for those who want to create something.
There is a huge amount of work to be done – everything needs to be redone.
Economics has never incorporated entropy.
it has been attempted by Nicolas Georgescu-Roegen (Mathematician, Statistician and Economist) in the 1960s/1970s – but has never been integrated back into economics – has never been integrated into mainstream-economics.
Nicolas Georgescu-Roegen is the scholar of the scholars – and the economist of the economists – really hardcore – and no economist should be ignorant of the implications of entropy in the field – because it really questions everything.
Samuelson himself has never changed his book (to reflect that) – it ran through another 20 editions without changing it (in that direction in any way) – so there is an ideological blockage.
i see in the economic framework – besides the definition of an open system – as opposed to a closed system – which is the way it is usually taught – is what do we do what they call “extranalaties”.
In the economic field you have a theoretical framework that is perfectly rational and perfectly mathematical coherent – but it is not related to anything outside of it’s framework.
This is a structural problem – and if you deal with structural problems you need to have structural solutions – if you don’t you just gonna repeat the cycle.
What politicians, economists and (!) society (your father/mother) say:
“If you would work harder – we would not have economic problems” (governments would not be in debt and so on):
FALSE! if there are “STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS IN YOUR ECONOMIC MODEL.”
What i am proposing as a model is: You have the economy as a center – and you have around it the human-social system were economics is a subset of – there are lots of things we do that are not economic.
And the social-system itself is a subset of the biosphere – so the three fall into each other – and therefore there are no analogies in that approach – that is the model – which is called
i haven’t invented it – there is a full series of people that have been working with it.
What is taught is an abstract ideology that has nothing to do with reality.
Screenshot from the above Video: nice gesture Mr Lietaer 😀
Just for the Love of it: Who the F**** is “Courtney Love was invented?” ah never mind i just misheard something in the above video.
Please also watch the two speakers before him to fully understand what he is talking about: https://altcoopsys.org/2016/10/03/financial-reform-for-a-sustainable-economy-globalutmaning-speakers-bernard-lietaer-michael-kumhof/
They had implemented at least half of the Bretton-Woods money-reform proposals.
The Bretton Woods system after the 2008 crisis
In the wake of the Global financial crisis of 2008, policymakers and others have called for a new international monetary system that some of them also dub Bretton Woods II. On the other side, this crisis has revived the debate about Bretton Woods II.[Notes 5]
On 24–25 September 2009 US President Obama hosted the G20 in Pittsburgh. A realignment of currency exchange rates was proposed. This meeting’s policy outcome could be known as the Pittsburgh Agreement of 2009, where deficit nations may devalue their currencies and surplus nations may revalue theirs upward.
In March 2010, Prime Minister Papandreou of Greece wrote an op-ed in the International Herald Tribune, in which he said, “Democratic governments worldwide must establish a new global financial architecture, as bold in its own way as Bretton Woods, as bold as the creation of the European Community and European Monetary Union. And we need it fast.” In interviews coinciding with his meeting with President Obama, he indicated that Obama would raise the issue of new regulations for the international financial markets at the next G20 meetings in June and November 2010.
Over the course of the crisis, the IMF progressively relaxed its stance on “free-market” principles such as its guidance against using capital controls. In 2011, the IMF’s managing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn stated that boosting employment and equity “must be placed at the heart” of the IMF’s policy agenda. The World Bank indicated a switch towards greater emphases on job creation.
However, Deutsche Bank’s Sanjeev Sanyal has argued that the insistence on global balance is fundamentally flawed and that sustained economic growth has always relied on symbiotic imbalances. This means that the world will eventually have to accept a return to new period of imbalance that he calls Bretton Woods III.