Bazz, we may have to agree to disagree.

Granted whenever stuff happens, whether it be natural or manmade, energy in some form is required. I think perhaps our impasse may be you evoke this fact, whereas I say money drives the unnecessary and unsustainable use of energy.

If the planet was devoid of a monetary system we would by nature only do what we have to do and what we really like, therefore would only expend the minimal energy required. For example, Michael Symons observed in One Continuous Picnic about Australian Aboriginals:

“Even in drought, two or three hours' collecting could be sufficient. The women's work, in a sense, freed the men for their longer hours of more chancy hunting. As with the women, they collected small game but also hoped for a feast like a kangaroo or emu. It still left plenty of time for people to rest, gossip and make tools and artworks.”

This scenario existed for tens of thousands of years and used a minimum of energy.

Monetary systems have facilitated a form of slavery that produces a lot of stuff that we do not need and in the process unnecessary energy is consumed.

John Sterman said in Sustaining Sustainability:

“Endless economic growth is impossible, how- ever. Resource use and environmental impact per person cannot fall to zero—people need a minimum amount of food, living space, energy, and waste disposal capacity, among other resources. The only way total impact can stabilize is for both population and economic output per person to stabilize. Yet no nation on earth seeks to end the growth of its economy.”

The statement summarises the state of we as a species, and our precarious relationship to spaceship earth. The inevitable financial collapse will reduce our energy consumption or we will expend even more in the form of war.

I think both Corbyn and Sanders are philosophically heading in the right direction, although I also believe that one size does not fit all. I prefer a bottom up anarcho syndicalist model as opposed to a top down centrally controlled scenario.

Shadow Minister, I must apologise, it was Hasbeen that uttered that fact.

Greece’s problem is not a Greek problem; it is a consequence of decades of failed capitalist and communist systems. Both have been manipulated by the global Fractional Reserve Banking Ponzi scheme that has been to the detriment of the planet.

We can all do an Iceland and for that matter develop Thorium reactors.

Producer said;
whereas I say money drives the unnecessary and unsustainable use of energy.

This I think is the crux of the matter;
You "were" right, but you are no longer, the rules have changed.
Production of energy is declining. It has been living on the emergency
ration of tight shale oil since 2005. That is now declining.
Money can no longer drive the use of oil.

Any further finds are very unlikely to have more than a very temporary
effect on supply. Price no longer can affect supply and the higher
prices of previous years are unaffordable.

Goldilocks is dead!

Producer,

I was looking for more than slogans. How is the failure of one of the most socialist governments that borrowed itself in oblivion a failure of the capitalist system. Unless your argument is that the Greek socialists were too mentally retarded to understand the consequences of their uncontrolled expenditure, I struggle to see who else is to blame.

Iceland made a recovery on the back of meeting their IMF repayments, and negotiating with their creditors who include charities, pension funds of workers etc, and while on the way to recovery are far from out of the woods.

In the first instance any attempt of implementing "socialist" policies without containing the oligarchical local and international forces is an exercise in futility .

Not so long ago our utilities were government owned and no one thought we were a socialist regime. Ditto our railways. Today our government departments routinely hire private consultants, the waste is immeasurable but because they are private consultant we accept it as less wasteful

Nothing wrong with a bit government ownership
It acts as a good counter weight

Nothing wrong with disbanding big conglomerates into smaller companies
It spreads the wealth lowers risk and reduces the scope of. Corruption

Excess is the enemy
And boy have we bathed in excess

Break up th supermarkets
Break up Telstra
Break up the banks

Share the wealth

Smaller companies are great
Huge monoliths are a blight on the world
They exercise way too much power

No that long ago the USA broke up AT&T into the baby bells because of wide power abuse of AT&T - so we have precedent

YEBIGA and Producer are the few that understand the reality .We have to stop the left/right labelling of ideas and look at what is really fair.

There is no way we would tolerate any sport in this country being so unfair as in China whereby people in China get paid 20 times less than us and they have far less Govt regulation and no OH&S BS that stifles innovation.

This so called free trade has nothing to do with being fair or giving opportunity to innovation or hard work.

Unless we pay those who produce enough money to consume the products they make, our economies will shrink to oblivion.