10-01-2014, 06:42 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-01-2014, 06:55 AM by Lewx_Lucas.)
Hello, I happen to be the author 
There are previous articles that explain why our discussion is framed as it is. I do not necessarily see accumulation of capital as a problem, but the current ecological situation - driven by the needs of increased economic growth - is preparing for a mass extinction. This will affect the majority of humanity in a very negative way, and risk the technological and social progress we have made. We need to base our calculations not only on the laws of supply and demand, but we need to have a system that by default includes the "externalities".
The issue with inequality comes up not as a centre-piece, but as a result of moving towards a closed-loop sustainable system. Capitalism derives it's legitimacy from economic growth, since "people who 20 years ago were starving are now half-starving, and the Indian and Chinese middle classes have exploded" (the American dream globalised). If we would have a closed loop system with a monetary exchange system in place, wealth would become deflationary instead of inflationary, and lead to decreased social mobility and thereby heightened social conflicts.
Therefore it is important that a sustainable system is not only ecologically, but also economically and socially sustainable.
http://eoshorizon.wordpress.com/2013/09/...ccounting/
I agree that the term "post-monetaryism" is a bit bad, since it can be misinterpreted for "post-monetarism".
The article on post-monetarism is written to purposely exclude for example luddites, anarcho-primitivists and "free energy" conspiracy followers from the discourse, in order to be able to move it forward. Therefore it was left deliberately vague, so people that are working seriously on these issues can move forward.
There are previous articles that explain why our discussion is framed as it is. I do not necessarily see accumulation of capital as a problem, but the current ecological situation - driven by the needs of increased economic growth - is preparing for a mass extinction. This will affect the majority of humanity in a very negative way, and risk the technological and social progress we have made. We need to base our calculations not only on the laws of supply and demand, but we need to have a system that by default includes the "externalities".
The issue with inequality comes up not as a centre-piece, but as a result of moving towards a closed-loop sustainable system. Capitalism derives it's legitimacy from economic growth, since "people who 20 years ago were starving are now half-starving, and the Indian and Chinese middle classes have exploded" (the American dream globalised). If we would have a closed loop system with a monetary exchange system in place, wealth would become deflationary instead of inflationary, and lead to decreased social mobility and thereby heightened social conflicts.
Therefore it is important that a sustainable system is not only ecologically, but also economically and socially sustainable.
http://eoshorizon.wordpress.com/2013/09/...ccounting/
I agree that the term "post-monetaryism" is a bit bad, since it can be misinterpreted for "post-monetarism".
The article on post-monetarism is written to purposely exclude for example luddites, anarcho-primitivists and "free energy" conspiracy followers from the discourse, in order to be able to move it forward. Therefore it was left deliberately vague, so people that are working seriously on these issues can move forward.