Are we running out of resources?

Why not just implement a damn negative interest rate on cash and a land value tax on land?

In fact, it is quite amusing to see capitalists talk about free markets when the currencies they use quite literally exist to prevent free markets from forming. A precious metal currency is a tool for maintaining power with the aristocracy. Perpetual land ownership is effectively the same. Feudalism ended by giving everyone the freedom to become a feudalist, that's capitalism. It works much better but how about we stop the concentration of power for good?

When you are rich, you have the option of investing or lending. If you lend, then someone else must invest on your behalf. When you think about it, lending simply shifts all the risk of an investment onto the borrower. In an increasingly saturated economy, which the author of the original article doesn't even recognize as a thing, most investments are unable break even. The risk adjusted return of an investment is negative but you, the lender, can always pull out your money as cash to get guaranteed 0%, this threat makes banks unwilling to lower their interest rate below 0%. Banks stop lending to risky lenders. Saved money is no longer circulating in the economy. Deflation/low inflation sets in.

If the government does nothing or austerity, then you get a great depression very soon. If the government does something, then it must act as the borrower of last resort, who is creating artificial demand for capital. If I had to describe QE it is actually as if the government created a state operated investment fund for government bonds that is exclusively accessible to banks. It's not really money printing. It's a weird ass way of letting banks find a solvent borrower of last resort. When you deposit money on your bank account, the bank doesn't know when you are going to spend it. A bank reserve created by QE is just as liquid as money so it does the job. You can spend your money instantly and no bank is going to care. They can just shrug off the fact that they are lending out deposits that can be spent instantly for 30 years.

This is still better than doing nothing. For all we know, the money could be spent on climate change or whatever. However, it would be better to address the problem at its root and just tell the rich to get lost by no longer guaranteeing automatic capital accumulation and free capital preservation.

> Hurricanes that used to be the feat of a decade are now an over-yearly occurrence.

I couldn't find any data that proves this. Maybe you could share?

Not sure I like the term "over-utilization" it's more likely over-consumption and under-utilización.

The industrial revolution was arguably a by-product of huge amounts of wealth in the hands of a few. Efficiencies of scale may exist, but are not dependant on equal or inequal distribution of benefit. Seems to me historically rich people/nations have consumed more natural resources, often taking them from other people/nations, focusing not on global wealth creation but on moving resources in, at the expense of global wealth. On a global scale, inequality seems to have led to more consumption and destruction of someone else's long term resources. Equality seems to lead to more resource preservation, thus better utilización.

Inequality is the result of thinking about yourself at the expense of others, equality is the result of thinking about others, and those targeting equality are likely to include future generations in their definition of "others" and thus more efficient/conservation use of long term resources.

Interested to see any stats to back up the assertion that "reducing inequalities typically means more consumption" on a global scale.

Historically those stagnant periods of low economic growth were usually broken up with violent strife. It can happen again of course, but does not seem likely (atm) on a significant scale. If we assume we're not all going to be bombed out of existence, then the question is whether most of us are going to be holding up empty bags when the stagnation sets in.

Apparently those options are not good enough to be implemented.

- Unionisation - helped for a while, then those companies where it was implemented didn't survive because they could not make anything effectively.

- building a cooperative-based economy - would be nice in theory if all people could cooperate. But in reality, they do not, there will be freewheelers who game the system.

- UBI - not tried yet is the only difference between UBI and communism. So, it's good but only in theory, we don't know practice yet. I personally believe it's the best solution out there, but life may verify that like communism.

- minimum wages - we have minimum wages in Poland, they don't help that much, but weren't updated and inflation eaten them away.

- nationalising important industries and resources - all nationalised resources are being wasted away for political reasons sooner or later. I know this from practice

- building systems of mutual aid - that helps, but if nationalised - they are squandered for political reasons. If commercial - being squandered due to greed. But yes, they are mostly working in most countries.

Options are many, implementable are not.