But, But, But; Pericles & others;
If there is no growth possible in energy how can there be growth in
the economy ?

Surely soon, zero growth will be imposed on us ?
Growth is tied to energy, not money.
Unless we can increase the amount of alternative energy dramatically
we will have a decreasing amount of energy and negative growth.
BTW what is a better phrase than negative growth ?

Yabby you cannot see because you don't want to since a more equitable system will see the banking system and it's parasitic share market cease to hyper-ventilate.The easy money for people like yourself will be gone,since the ability of the banks to create money from nothing will be limited or at least taxed.

Arjay, not so, I am prepared to discuss anything, as long as it
makes sense, is thought through and could actually work.

When banks "create money from nothing" as you call it, that means
they lend out money, but that is recirculating money, somebody else
deposits it. Without that system, there would be no loans.
If you think that an economy can function without credit, good luck
to you.

As for the share market, I think you still don't understand its
vital role. When corporations are formed or need capital, selling
shares in themselves is how they do it. That money needs to come
from somewhere. Anyone, including you, can risk your hard earned
savings and buy a share, small or large. Those shares need to
be bought and sold, as anything else is bought and sold.

Once again, if you think that corporations can function without
capital and without trading those shares in themselves, you are
frankly kidding yourself.

You Arjay, if you think that banks are ripping you off, can go
and buy 1000$ worth of bank shares, risk your money, go to the the
AGM and study their annual report. Then you might finally understand
how and why banks and sharemarkets function as they do, all for
very good reasons.

I sense this thread is nearing its natural end, Arjay, since there is little point in explaining to you the processes involved in the banking system, if your response is political, rather than practical.

>>you cannot see because you don't want to since a more equitable system will see the banking system and it's parasitic share market cease to hyper-ventilate.<<

Your idea of an "equitable" system is the issue here. As far as I can tell from your explanation, your proposals would result in a total freeze of the banking system. Which would be a really bad thing for everybody. Not just the "parasites". Everybody. You. Me. Yabby.

Everybody.

>>The easy money for people like yourself will be gone,since the ability of the banks to create money from nothing will be limited or at least taxed.<<

This is where the problem shows itself most clearly.

The money, as has been explained to you on more than one occasion, was not "created from nothing".

It was created in response to a request for a loan, which brought into being some form of debt instrument, which in turn became an asset.

Where you touch - albeit lightly - on the truth, is that the banking system was able to become profitable through the growth created by these debt instruments. But since their shares occupy a significant corner of the Super Funds upon which many Australians continue to rely, these profits were not all bad, either.

And a quickie for Bazz while I'm here.

>>Unless we can increase the amount of alternative energy dramatically
we will have a decreasing amount of energy and negative growth.<<

The economics of substitution will take care of this.

http://www.economicswebinstitute.org/glossary/substitute.htm

The fact that it will initially be more expensive - i.e. we will be driving existing sources way up the curve before substitution can take effect - will certainly dampen demand for other products. Will it be sufficient in itself to drive us into negative growth? Too far away to speculate.

Incidentally, the technical terms for negative growth include contraction, recession and depression.

take your pick.

Thanks for the link Pericles;
I think I will use contraction, that seems a more direct opposite of
growth.
The problem as I see it is one of scale.
We have to use the currently available energy sources to do the change
to the new energy regime, which I believe will have to be very largely
electrically orientated.
With the scale back in oil search and development I don't think we can
get any significant amount of energy conversion done in time before
depletion becomes quite significant.
It is becoming more and more certain that peak oil occurred last year.
The IEA believes we need to find three or four more Saudi Arabias by
2017 which I think everyone believes just won't happen.

To substitute enough energy just to replace transport fuels will be
a massive job especially as it will mean a complete rebuild of the
mobile assets, due to their new energy sources.
For that reason I believe that we should put every available dollar
into the rail and shipping networks and abandon the highways to their
fate.

In the Hirsch report Hirsch stated that to get the change done without
some dislocation we would need 20 years, and that with some
significant dislocation 10 years would be needed before peak oil.
It now looks as though we have -1 year.

The big problem is that the politicians refuse to even acknowledge
that there is a problem and so they will drive us even further into
trouble and will not react until someone tells them about the
petrol queues.