"What we need is to treat the earth as sacred, and as spiritual... its not a matter of becoming less materialistic, but I would say becoming more materialistic - loving matter more, loving the earth more"
We need to stop valuing things and using people and start using things and valuing people. Then things will change organically and collectively. The earth mirrors our inner emotions collectively. Toxicity on the inside creates toxicity in the see it, touch it, feel it world. That is the LAW of cause and effect. It is a universal constant 🤙🏼
"We have to create miracles, really. A miracle being, not the intercession of an external divine agency in violation of the laws of physics. A miracle is simply something that is impossible from the old story, and possible from the new one."
A miracle is some thing that’s happening all day every day all the time since the beginning of time. And if people would start to realize that then things would really start to change.
18:20 I disagree with charles' analysis, while our money system does encourage endless growth, and works better when it is present, the ability to pay debts is not dependent on new money or growth. This is because money circulate more than once. Furthermore, I believe it is in fact falling prices, and smaller margins, that makes it hard to pay back debt. Add on top of the a total lack of creativity for how we employ people. Employment should not be exclusively dependent on private consumption. This inevitably leads to unengaged labor or a focus on low priorities. It often also means that some people will always be essentially unstably employed, as we can always satisfy our needs before using all our resources, including labor. This is where we often try to use endless growth of consumption to compensate. The truth is, we need to come together to find better ways to engage people's efforts.
Well, money is not the only kind of financial asset. Once you count bonds, stocks, property, services, goods, etc, then you by far have a net positive. Money itself is just supposed to tokenize debts so that debts can be exchanged and people can transact. The point about interest is valid in that it is both destabilizing and limiting(money doesn't have opportunity cost, real resources do, ie it's not wasteful to let money idle), but it doesn't mean you have to keep growing the money supply to settle debts. Debts can be settled with a smaller quantity of money if it circulates multiple times. For example if you owe $100, but there are only $10 in existence, that just means the money has to circulate 10 times for you to pay off your debt.
Also, turning a community activity into an economic one isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as it doesn't completely displace the opportunity to interact as community . Making something a business allows you to scale it up, increase productivity, and be subject to more careful public scrutiny and regulation. In the right context, these are all good things. The issue is knowing the right context, and not forcing everything to be economic when just being a community thing is the better choice.
If you make something economic, the big drawback is you always need to operate on a sufficient scale, with a certain level of sales, to keep it going, because you are dedicating resources specifically for that purpose, in a way that can only be sustained with profit. If a community does something, then the resource comes from the community and isn't exclusively dedicated for that purpose, but they are just used as needed - for example playing soccer on the front lawn, vs a commercial field. If you only have a couple people playing on the front lawn it's not a problem, but if you only have a couple people join a league on a field you have to rent, you need enough participation to keep it going, because the resource gets reserved exclusively for a specific purpose through some kind of priced payment. Prices aren't really efficient, because there are always idle resources everywhere, which is fine, but when you commercialize resources through property rights, resource use is blocked unless there is payment and profit, whereas if you don't, resource use is allowed UNLESS there is some kind of cost or encroachment. So commercializing increases productivity, but at the cost of perhaps unnecessarily restricting use through property right exclusion.
The problem goes much deeper, that there is not much more we can convert into money (goods and services) that we already dont pay for, which slows the system down. The system will slowly die like every empire in history.
The problem is instantiating money based on interest bearing promises-to-pay. Compounding the problem is when this control is given to a few private families. It is a (mus-eroz) zs-game. Yes, I'm heavily censored discussing these issues, and I have to guess key-word triggers. The money actually exists, but it is a zs-game. Yes, technically, flow could pay off all the debts, but then there is not money. And, I want to see anyone suggesting that as a realistic probability to provide a mathematical model of exactly how money will flow to every debtor in exactly the time frame they need to pay their debts. It's laughable. And I have news for ya -- the people who created this system know exactly how it works, and they are siphoning money away from us leaving only the debts. You can't get at their money... the debts aren't payable. Once called in... POOF... IT'S GONE!
He blames the govt's role in lowering interest rates to a level that incentivizes natural resource exploitation to repay the debt incurred. How is negative rates going to help curb consumption. Why is his next logical step not to advocate for fixed money or 100 percent reserve banking, which prevents bankers from making more money. Watch Bob Murphy and George Selgin debate fractional reserve banking. This guy is on to something but needs to check his premises.
He was saying positive rates lead to exploitation and hoarding, not negative rates. He is advocating for negative rates. Full reserve banking is a completely different issue which does have some merits and drawbacks.
"What we need is to treat the earth as sacred, and as spiritual... its not a matter of becoming less materialistic, but I would say becoming more materialistic - loving matter more, loving the earth more"
We need to stop valuing things and using people and start using things and valuing people. Then things will change organically and collectively. The earth mirrors our inner emotions collectively. Toxicity on the inside creates toxicity in the see it, touch it, feel it world. That is the LAW of cause and effect. It is a universal constant 🤙🏼
Watching this in 2023 is a trip
Have always disliked commidification. Life is a gift to be shared. Glad to hear how to help hurry the collapse. Love.
"We have to create miracles, really. A miracle being, not the intercession of an external divine agency in violation of the laws of physics. A miracle is simply something that is impossible from the old story, and possible from the new one."
A miracle is some thing that’s happening all day every day all the time since the beginning of time. And if people would start to realize that then things would really start to change.
interesting to see this 2022, seeing him talking about negative interest rates...
Great lecturer
Mettete i sottotitoli grazie 🙏
Most profound video.
18:20 I disagree with charles' analysis, while our money system does encourage endless growth, and works better when it is present, the ability to pay debts is not dependent on new money or growth. This is because money circulate more than once. Furthermore, I believe it is in fact falling prices, and smaller margins, that makes it hard to pay back debt. Add on top of the a total lack of creativity for how we employ people.
Employment should not be exclusively dependent on private consumption. This inevitably leads to unengaged labor or a focus on low priorities. It often also means that some people will always be essentially unstably employed, as we can always satisfy our needs before using all our resources, including labor. This is where we often try to use endless growth of consumption to compensate. The truth is, we need to come together to find better ways to engage people's efforts.
He talks about many native American practices.
So many commenters think they know so much but maybe they just don't get it. Maybe you all are just too invested in the current system...
Well, money is not the only kind of financial asset. Once you count bonds, stocks, property, services, goods, etc, then you by far have a net positive. Money itself is just supposed to tokenize debts so that debts can be exchanged and people can transact. The point about interest is valid in that it is both destabilizing and limiting(money doesn't have opportunity cost, real resources do, ie it's not wasteful to let money idle), but it doesn't mean you have to keep growing the money supply to settle debts. Debts can be settled with a smaller quantity of money if it circulates multiple times. For example if you owe $100, but there are only $10 in existence, that just means the money has to circulate 10 times for you to pay off your debt.
Also, turning a community activity into an economic one isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as it doesn't completely displace the opportunity to interact as community . Making something a business allows you to scale it up, increase productivity, and be subject to more careful public scrutiny and regulation. In the right context, these are all good things. The issue is knowing the right context, and not forcing everything to be economic when just being a community thing is the better choice.
If you make something economic, the big drawback is you always need to operate on a sufficient scale, with a certain level of sales, to keep it going, because you are dedicating resources specifically for that purpose, in a way that can only be sustained with profit. If a community does something, then the resource comes from the community and isn't exclusively dedicated for that purpose, but they are just used as needed - for example playing soccer on the front lawn, vs a commercial field. If you only have a couple people playing on the front lawn it's not a problem, but if you only have a couple people join a league on a field you have to rent, you need enough participation to keep it going, because the resource gets reserved exclusively for a specific purpose through some kind of priced payment. Prices aren't really efficient, because there are always idle resources everywhere, which is fine, but when you commercialize resources through property rights, resource use is blocked unless there is payment and profit, whereas if you don't, resource use is allowed UNLESS there is some kind of cost or encroachment. So commercializing increases productivity, but at the cost of perhaps unnecessarily restricting use through property right exclusion.
The problem goes much deeper, that there is not much more we can convert into money (goods and services) that we already dont pay for, which slows the system down. The system will slowly die like every empire in history.
The problem is instantiating money based on interest bearing promises-to-pay.
Compounding the problem is when this control is given to a few private families.
It is a (mus-eroz) zs-game. Yes, I'm heavily censored discussing these issues, and I have to guess key-word triggers.
The money actually exists, but it is a zs-game. Yes, technically, flow could pay off all the debts, but then there is not money. And, I want to see anyone suggesting that as a realistic probability to provide a mathematical model of exactly how money will flow to every debtor in exactly the time frame they need to pay their debts. It's laughable. And I have news for ya -- the people who created this system know exactly how it works, and they are siphoning money away from us leaving only the debts.
You can't get at their money... the debts aren't payable. Once called in... POOF... IT'S GONE!
I keep feeling listening to this guy that he just needs to learn about bitcoin.
I'd love to learn more about why Bitcoin would be a good solution.
@@sustainabletoday Good for you. Check out Andreas Antonopoulos. He's very fair and balanced in his perspective and extremely knowledgeable
bitcoin is unfortunately the wrong tech. it's flawed in its design....
He blames the govt's role in lowering interest rates to a level that incentivizes natural resource exploitation to repay the debt incurred. How is negative rates going to help curb consumption. Why is his next logical step not to advocate for fixed money or 100 percent reserve banking, which prevents bankers from making more money. Watch Bob Murphy and George Selgin debate fractional reserve banking. This guy is on to something but needs to check his premises.
He was saying positive rates lead to exploitation and hoarding, not negative rates. He is advocating for negative rates. Full reserve banking is a completely different issue which does have some merits and drawbacks.