Debate on the green economics list continues. A member asks whether green monetary reformers object to lending per se.
What we object to primarily is the perpetual growth in throughput of materials in our so-called "economy", (better termed a wastonomy or a dyseconomy), because it is
(a) destroying the ecosphere on which we depend for survival in the future and
(b) depends on the thesis that perpetual expansion into a finite space is possible, which is a logical absurdity and
(c) the levels of debt built up under the present system are unsustainable and unethical. Debt is a power relationship.
No, we are not against lending per se, but we want it brought back under some kind of prudent control, (a consensus on this point has emerged out of the latest round of debate on the green economics list), to end the kind of vacuum economy that we now have. In particular, we object to the privatisation and monopolisation of debt by the private banks, and wish to see the community itself benefit from the ability to provide money that the banks have arrogated to themselves.
Some people do not think that the economy about to collapse. But I take it that they do accept the general view that America is about to enter a recession? If they do, but view it as a short and transient dip, that is your judgment, but my judgment is that the enormous extent of world debt, together with rising energy prices and the impact of global warming, may cause a major global depression, and the Green Parties of the world should lay down contingency plans for this event.