> nobody has ever been able to show how it is possible to run a "steady-state" economy

This is a non-argument. Before money was created, nobody had been able to show that a non-barter economy would work. Or capitalism for that matter. The fact that nobody has so far has figured out a way to make it work doesn't mean anything. The only thing of interest would be conclusive proof that it's impossible.

I'm fairly sure that at some point we need to move over to some sort of steady-state economy due to the scarcity problem [1]. I'm also fairly sure that the transition will happen in small steps and people will only notice afterwards. Some pieces are already being discussed and some have been tried, such as currencies with negative interest, basic income, ...

[1] The only other option being mass extinction. That's a bit meh, I don't feel like being part of that. I'll rather choose Star Trek :)

Question: What is money?

And something existed before "money" was "created". It was and is called "debt".

There is a pretty well accepted definition of money: It's an object or record that's accepted as a form of payment, often with very little value in itself. Early forms of money included shells, for example. Coins are an evolution, printed bank notes as well. The precursor to money is barter: I trade 5 goats for one cow, that I can then trade for a horse. The money equivalent is that I sell 5 goats for 10 money that I can use to buy the horse.

Debt is related to property and certainly related to money, since debts are nowadays kept track of in terms of money, but debt is not the precursor to money and certainly debt is not a requirement for a money-based system. It's like saying "before money was created, there were the sun, the moon and the stars".

"but debt is not the precursor to money' There are people that would disagree. Actually already 100 years ago: http://www.ces.org.za/docs/The%20Credit%20Theoriy%20of%20Mon...

"and certainly debt is not a requirement for a money-based system." This is kind of true. You could run a trade based economy on pre 1750 level with' lets say gold or silver or sea shells as "money". But you CANT RUN A INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISTIC society without debt. At least nobody has ever been able to show that this is possible. We need growth, we need more energy. I am afraid this will not end well. Read the links I posted in this thread.

Well strictly speaking, modern money is "debt" while originally money was a commodity such as gold.

Both types of money function in the same way, as a form of payment, but they differ significantly in implementation.

> And something existed before "money" was "created". It was and is called "debt".

The word you're looking for is "barter", not debt. Debt exists whether or not there is money.

yes. And this is why I was talking about "debt" and not "barter".

> A capitalistic system can not be run without growth [...]

Several states (eg in Europe) have been running with contracting or stagnant economies for a while. It's not pretty, but they run.

Or what do you mean by "can not be run"?

Steady state means stopping all research, just in case you discover something that upsets the applecart. More accurate to say that no modern economy can be run without trying to grow, whether it succeeds or not.

> A capitalistic system can not be run without growth

I disagree. You are told we need to grow by X% p.a. and we need an inflation of Y% p.a. and we need to weaken our currencies to boost exports bla bla.

It is possible to show that this is BS if you thought it through.

BTW, I'd call "them" by their name if I knew it. BTW2, "Economics in one Lesson" was my eye opener, it was written in 1946 but it reads at if is was written yesterday.

It is very easy. If you speak German I actually could send you an excellent PDF.

Debt is a law like gravity. You can have it explained by Ludwig von Mises. It is a reward for risk and saving. Discounted cash flow is actually the opposite and the reason why a cash creating asset, let's stay farmland, still has a finite price but theoretical unlimited future income.

To serve debt you have to create more in the future. Do you know how all our debt will be paid back? With more debt. Once the expected return is 0 then there is no reason to give credit anymore. Every capitalistic system relies on these unfortunate facts.

I like Mises a lot,even if I think his idea of money is plain wrong. But it was Keynes who always saw the end coming. He also gives some ideas in "The death of the rentier".

This is also an interesting post: Wealth And Energy Consumption Are Inseparable http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/01/wealth-and-energy-...

or here:

There is No Steady State Economy (except at a very basic level) http://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/02/21/there-is-no-steady-stat...

I am afraid you are the bullshitter, not me.

The BS part was meant w.r.t. the theories because, unlike theirs, your opinion is not forced upon the people, so sorry if I left room for the misunderstanding.

I disagree in particular to the "to serve debt you have to create more" because creating more debt is incompatible with a capitalistic system because someone has to take the other side of the trade (the creditor).

A rational creditor wouldn't loan more debt and this is why the PIIGS don't get money on the bond market anymore. Therefore the CBs have to "print" the money or take it from somewhere else (ESM, OMT, QE ...) but none of these measures is voluntary but instead forced.

Therefore we have no capitalistic system but planned economy which was the original point.

Debt can also reduced via default. And this happens regularly with many companies and is ok. What is not ok is when these defaults get deferred, for instance, because a defaulting entity has the monopoly on creation of legal tender.

"to serve debt you have to create more" This is actually a well known fact.

"creating more debt is incompatible with a capitalistic system" Wrong. It is the basis of the capitalistic system.

"because someone has to take the other side of the trade' Yes. All debts have corresponding claims.

"A rational creditor wouldn't loan more debt and this is why the PIIGS don't get money on the bond market anymore." The game may have come to an end already. The only thing that delays a "jubilee" is the state as the lender of last resort. It is the last thing that will fail but it will fail. A "jubilee" is only a mid-term solution. The underlying problems (limited energy, exponential growing interest, debt based economy) may not be solved. We are running into a trap at a very fast speed. Even things like thorium reactors or fusion can only delay the sun set.

"Therefore the CBs have to "print" the money or take it" It does not make a difference for the problems if you use FIAT money or an asset based currency.

" from somewhere else (ESM, OMT, QE ...) but none of these measures is voluntary but instead forced." You may think a gold based currency may prevent this problems. We may only have collapsed faster (small collapse, "jubilee", not the big collapse).

"Therefore we have no capitalistic system but planned" yes we do have one. And we had a very good time with it. Unfortunately capitalism needs growth. And only madman and economists believe in infinite growth in a finite world.

Actually, the line Debt is a law... Should be Interest is a law...