The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Orientating the economically disorientated > Comments

Orientating the economically disorientated : Comments

By Cameron Leckie, published 25/8/2011

'Observe, orient, decide and act' is a winning mantra for fighter pilots, and could be for economists as well.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All
Hello Pericles, I am a little bit confused with your comments.

Firstly my aim had nothing to do with how the GFC could have been avoided. Personally I don't think it could have been avoided given the nature of our financial system. As far as what to do now, well that is the whole point of the article - for those who make economic polcy decisions to reorientate their world view away from the perpetual economic growth model. If you read some of my other articles at OLO you will see a whole host of other measures that we should take.

I think your comments on my rationale are widely off the mark and really don't see how you came to that conclusion.

Of course there are interdependencies between the three tiers of the economy. Maybe I didn't express it clearly enough but the 'economy' is made up of the three tiers, none of them, other than the primary economy can coexist without the others. But of course if only the primary economy existed we humans would all still be hunter gatherers. Whilst 'you can't eat money may sound trite,' a practical example of how the wealth of the three tiers are not interchangable is phosphorous. No amount of money will create a substitute for phosphorous and plants don't grow without it.

The problem with the tertiary economy is that it has got too big in relationship to the primary and secondary economies. Collectively as a society we are all to blame for that because we humans created the tertiary economy and we will all no doubt have to bear the consequences of that.

And if your final point (about reducing dependance on the money economy) is as obvious as you suggest, why is it that we have an economic monoculture that is based 100% on money? What I am suggesting is a resurgence in the household economy that existed not so long ago that will insulate us from the economic crises that are likely to shape the next few decades.

Cameron Leckie
Posted by leckos, Thursday, 25 August 2011 10:12:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would not really worry about being confused with some of the words Pericles uses, that be the Archetypical irrational standard output;
Now this professor in this link hits the nail on the head with simple understandings of Exponential Factors; Compared to the Pseudo mathematics of Political economies and its grouping; The Facts are somewhat different than what is expounded by the Institution of Political Economy and its various support networks;
Even Pericles will figure this one out;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=related
Watch and learn , very simple .
Posted by All-, Friday, 26 August 2011 6:33:18 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That could explain a lot, leckos.

>>Maybe I didn't express it clearly enough<<

But if your intent is to encourage "those who make economic polcy decisions to reorientate their world view away from the perpetual economic growth model", you signally fail to give any indication how this might occur.

That's like saying to someone on a speeding runaway train, "now would be a good time to get off", without providing any guidance how they might achieve this without incurring a fatal collision with the ground.

Not that I expect to find any solutions on this Forum. Anyone who has a workable hypothesis would not be blogging it, after all. My sole objection to these collections of "we've got it all wrong" sound-bites, is that offering such broad generalizations cannot enlighten, but simply serve to perpetuate general ignorance. For example:

>>The problem with the tertiary economy is that it has got too big in relationship to the primary and secondary economies<<

How big is too big? How small might be too small? Just saying it's all about peak oil, or fiat currencies, or "fractional reserve banking and exotic financial instruments" is mere waffle.

>>And if your final point (about reducing dependance on the money economy) is as obvious as you suggest, why is it that we have an economic monoculture that is based 100% on money?<<

That's exactly what I am talking about. Of course it is "obvious".

As I said, it is as obvious as the need to continue breathing in order to stay alive.

But so far, no-one has used breathing as a solution to personal survival, only as a leading indicator to the absence of death.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 26 August 2011 9:23:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What I think Cameron was saying, without actually saying it, was that
when our spending on energy & certain other necessities exceeds about
4% of GDP then we have nothing left with which to pay interest and debt.
It was the surge in energy spending that caused the GFC.

I think that is the simplistic but accurate way of describing the GFC.
So, unless we can find a new highly energy dense source of energy we
have to either reduce our consumption of energy or reduce our population.
Thats it, no way past the arithmetic of energy.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 29 August 2011 4:54:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy