Money, Money, Money

Money is a problem indeed. There are a few obvious fallacies about our culture that have become a clear and present danger. In my eyes it begins with the little problem that a mere tool (money) has become an end in itself, which really doesn't seem overly reasonable to me. The Swiss economist Prof. Binswanger studied around the world how ancient subsistence cultures disintegrated after the introduction of money and especially interest based credit systems. The old rule of "don't catch or kill more than you and your family can eat" is broken quickly, simply to meet the interest. Binswanger's prime example was a village of natives living in Russia by the Baikal lake, where credit based money economy had been introduced very late in the 20th century. Within a mere decade a formerly well functioning native community had fallen apart. A few got rich, other's fell into deep poverty. Cooperation in a sustainable culture was replaced by competition, greed and envy and the natural ressources were already depleted. It all began with one fisherman getting a loan to buy a bigger boat with a motor, having to catch ever more fish in order to meet the interest. It was the beginning of a vicious circle that drained the village. I was also surprised to recently learn that raising interest is prohibited by an old catholic church dogma which was re confirmed several times in history - and then aparently burried in silence. It reads: No money must come from money. Another statement goes: Money is the soul of war (Pecunia nervus beli), which should remind us of the origin of money: it was conceived to let otherwise unproductive members of society participate in economic activity: Soldiers and Bureaucrats. Which reminds me of a statement of the sword master Myamoto Musashi, who considered merchants and bureaucrats the lowliest members of society who's numbers need to be kept as low as possible. Apparently though it didn't occur to him that the same is might be true for his own warrior caste...:-). Alan Greenspan once said that the laws of economics are as close to absolute truth as anything could possibly be. I find that a very disturbing statement since the laws of economics are artificial all and through, plus they are not exact laws in the scientific sense at all. The British Physicist Christopher Caudwell already wrote in the 30s: "The Development of the Market cannot be predicted, therefore there are no known laws of the market. The free market is entirely anarchic." So in his eyes the "free market" is pretty much the opposite of what its Chicago School Laissez faire proponents claim it to be. There is one fundamental flaw in the currently existing economic system: since it is interest based, it has to grow constantly. A steady state situation already is considered a crisis. The obvious problem is - and I think this is simple common sense: There can be no unlimited growth within a limited system, which the Earth herself is for all practical purposes. The Earth's natural state is one of balance - homeostasis. A more or less stable self regulated system (as most of you probably know this idea was developed to the extreme by James Lovelock in the form of his "Gaia Theory", which treats the Earth as if she were a living creature. The "as if" is important here since Lovelock himself never said that the Earth actually IS a living creature.) Every living creature lives in homeostasis. Inner balance. Unlimited cell growth in a living creature has a medical name: it is called cancer. And it eventually kills the creature. So here we are back at Friedrich Nietzsche who already said at the end of the 19th century that "The Earth has a Pox Called man". Probably you know the little joke: Earth and Mars are meeting. Asks Mars: "How is it these millenia old friend" and Earth, looking slightly feverish shivers a bit "Well you know - recently I caught a really nasty mankind". Mars, with a compassionate voice says" Oh well - I am sorry to hear that. But I'm sure it will be gone soon." Eventually mankind WILL be forced to find a form of steady state economy. Otherwise good Mars in the joke may prove to be all too right. The insurance companies indeed are putting quite a bit of money into environmental research, especially the giant Munich Re Insurance here in Germany. The are the backup company for many of the large insurance companies and therefore are really hit badly when disasters strike. Currently we are demanding here in Germany that companies who want to release genetically manipulated organisms will need to obtain an insurance for that. No insurance - no permission. Problem is that the damage is not yet well defined. How do you assign a money value to, say, a vanished species? Well - I better stop here before I babble on and on. If anyone is interested: there is an absolutely fascinating book about money, written by one of the world's leading economists, the Belgian Professor Bernard Lieatar, who one of the main heads behind the development of the ECU - the convergence mechanism behind the Euro. The book is "The Future of Money" and it is surprisingly critical and creative - plus an exciting read. Topics include Monetary Instability, Aging Population, The Information Revolution, Fallacies of the monetary system, The Global Environmental Change and how it is connected with money, Alternative monetary systems (e.g. time dollars, community money etc.), economy from a Taoist perspective and much more. I learned a lot from it. If anyone cares: hee be the Amazon link. Probably some more description there: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0712683992/mindquest-20