The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Is there a point to enlighten everyone? Confused population is a part of the political-economic game...
Still far way, iow. Still far too many suckers to milk for that!
The weak link will always be the grifters who can corrupt anything...
'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
...once the neolib economy has finally crashed and burned enough times...
I see this vision of the future a lot, and it is not possible. Because given this alternative lots of things which we would not currently do becomes very palatable.
Such as cheap-skating reactor construction. There is no natural law keeping anyone from ripping out the furnace of a coal plant, sticking in a fission heat source and turning it back on.
Nor is it required by physical reality that one has to hold a decade of hearings before running a railline. And so on and so forth.
Nuclear waste straight out of a reactor is nasty stuff. Nuclear waste 500 years later.. is barely "hot" at all and contain a bunch of quite rare metals. in addition to the obvious: platinum, palladium, and technetium.
Tc is an beta-emmiter, but it has a very long halflife, doesn't exist in nature and makes nifty alloys.
This is why I tend to find concerns about really long term viability of storage a bit absurd. If we are still around at all, someone will be digging it back up.
And in an "no fossil fuels" context, noone will care.
Dry cask storage will do. Uhm. It'll probably do for the full five hundred years. There are older concrete structures than that standing, and casks are manufactured to a very high standard.
Dry cask storage will do. Uhm. It'll probably do for the full five hundred years. There are older concrete structures than that standing...
In Italy, after the Aquila Earthquake, the Italian government was "forced" to raise fuel taxes in order to pay for disaster relief and reconstruction, because the necessary government expenditure would not be monetised by the ECB.
In Spain, years after the Lorca earthquake, in a region with ample resources idle as a result of the construction sector slump, reconstruction still hasn't begun because of... lack of fiat money.
I am not saying that after a natural disaster the wealth and productivity of the affected community won't be affected. I'm saying that there are two ways for that GDP hit to manifest itself: devaluation of the local currency, maybe inflation; or unemployment and permanent reduction of productivity, risk of insolvency from reduce aggregate income. Hard-money views end up producing unemployment, preventing the repair of damaged fixed capital, and generating a debt overhang through reduced growth. But the currency is "sound".
A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
I'm not being flippant. New Zealand's current economic growth rate (4%) apparently owes a substantial amount to the reconstruction of the city of Christchurch, destroyed by earthquakes a couple of years ago, and which is largely funded by insurance money which is flooding in from overseas.
Surely the reconstruction efforts you mention should be covered by some sort of disaster insurance fund? And whether public or private, this would amount to the creation of money, wouldn't it?
It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II
My point is that the existence of a fiscal authority is the ultimate insurance policy.
So, what kinds of implicit guarantees are Eurozone governments providing that they shouldn't be in the business of providing? I can think of half a dozen off the top of my head:
deposit insurance for banks
granting limited liability to businesses
access to health care
access to education
access to legal redress
All of these are implicit guarantees that every citizen in Europe expects to enjoy relatively free of charge. These are large contingent liabilities of the state. Any and all of them could not be undertaken by a private entity that didn't charge hefty fees up front and wasn't adequately capitalised in case a particularly large claim presented itself. Would you pay a savings deposit insurance premium to an inadequately capitalised insurance company? (not that "sophisticated investors" didn't do exactly that when they bought CDS "protection" over the past 10 years) Would you incur risks with a full-liability entity having less capital than your potential loss? Would you trust you can be rescued from a disaster by an entity without the capital and operating income to actually fund a rescue operation? How about health insurance from an entity without the resources to pay for the treatment? How about your right to file a complaint to an entity without the necessary money to operate a grievance handling system? How about contracting physical security or firefighting services from an entity without the operating income to actually deploy security or firefighters?
Zero Hedge returns to the broken windows fallacy often. They argue, the money for broken windows (or a disaster ravaged city) would have gone productively somewhere else. The Keynesian observation is actually - there come times when money is so strictly hoarded (or captured), that there is no selfish motivation to invest it anywhere productive. Things get so bad that it is then helpful to brake windows, dig holes, drop bombs.
Money functions basically as economic activity rights. When mathematics and politics combine to inevitably "stable" money concentration, and all power belongs to money holders, they will find the ways to keep their holdings valuable - or obtain everything else in return. That is why zerohedgy hyperinflation fears are pretty laughable - that will come when when People With Money will decide.
By definition, scarcity means that there is not enough for everyone - with whatever money.
So let's introduce the concept of Democratic Deflation - democracy is inversely proportional to engineered scarcity.
The reality is of course there's plenty for everyone, as long as it's distributed fairly and not hoarded by those delusional individuals who believe they have a right to it.
Is there a point to enlighten everyone?
From the elite point of view, the idea is horrific.
Practically education is a game changer, because if you give as many people as good an education as possible, at least a few of them will research and invent the fuck out of the future.
You want real growth based on real activity? Educate, inform, and involve. Then stand back and watch what happens.
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 22 2 comments
by Oui - Mar 16 16 comments
by Oui - Mar 15 5 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 9 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 14 14 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 2 3 comments
by Oui - Mar 271 comment
by Oui - Mar 2710 comments
by Oui - Mar 22
by Oui - Mar 2211 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 222 comments
by Oui - Mar 1944 comments
by Oui - Mar 1739 comments
by gmoke - Mar 17
by Oui - Mar 1616 comments
by Oui - Mar 1537 comments
by Oui - Mar 155 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 1414 comments
by Oui - Mar 134 comments
by Oui - Mar 128 comments
by Oui - Mar 1112 comments
by Oui - Mar 1058 comments
by Oui - Mar 1015 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 93 comments
by Oui - Mar 99 comments