Professor Steinar Strøms kunnskapsløse fordommer

Professor Steinar Strøm tror på gamle myter om bytteøkonomien. Han hevder følgende:

"Bytteøkonomi var noe som var tilstede før den industrielle revolusjon, sier Strøm."

Dette er en av fremskrittsreligionens mange løgner om tidligere mennesker for å fremheve egen fortreffelighet, på like linje med at mennesker i middelalderen trodde at jorda var flat. John Michael Greer har gjennomgått disse og mange andre myter i boka After Progress - Reason and Religion at the End of the Industrial Age.

Min kommentar til denne fordomsfulle og historieløse professoren:

Denne professoren har ikke peiling. Hva MDG mener er deleøkonomi, som er noe helt annet enn en bytteøkonomi. Professoren kjenner ikke historien, det eksisterte ALDRI bytteøkonomier i førindustriell tid. Dette er en myte for å indikere en progresjon. David Graeber, som skrev "5000 years of debt", har fullstendig motbevist denne professorens tåpelige, ahistoriske fordommer.

"Intet eksempel på en bytteøkonomi, enkelt og greit, har noensinne vært beskrevet, langt mindre tilsynekomsten av penger ut fra denne; all tilgjengelig etnografi tyder på at noe slikt aldri har eksistert.” – David Graeber

Deleøkonomien, eller hva Charles Eisenstein kaller en gaveøkonomi, eksisterer fremdeles, og vi trenger denne ettersom gjeldsøkonomien kollapser. Her følger en kommentar av Tverberg etter hennes siste essay "Responses to How our energy problem leads to a debt collapse".

There is no way that retirement accounts can really be funded, except by taxing the younger generation. Over the years, we have used debt to such an extent that we have built up the myth that what we have (whether it be in bond values, or stock market values, or bank account values) can be measured by what is on our bank statements or statements from our brokers. In fact, in any year, all we have is what the “system” can produce, in terms of food, clothing, homes, educational output. There is some accumulated “stock” of things like roads, pipelines, electrical transmission lines, homes, and schools, but these need repairs every year, or they are likely to be unusable. Also, as realtors tell us, the value of a house is determined by “Location, location, and location.” If jobs and grocery stores go away (as well as water by pipeline), then an awfully lot of houses will cease to have value as well. The value of paper assets is likely to disappear, as our ability to make goods and services disappears. 

The thing we are in danger of losing is the “system” that holds all of this together. This is really the financial and international trade system. If we lose this, then we lose our ability to get replacement parts. We may very well lose the banking system, or at least the international component of the banking system. Without the current level of international trade, it is not possible to make complex things like computers and cell phones. In fact, it is really difficult to make high quality metals. Even trying to reuse metals for new uses takes a lot of energy. So it is likely to turn out that a local currency doesn’t buy much. 

I am at a loss for saying what people should learn. To some extent, I am afraid that the break will be so great that we can’t prepare for it very well. There certainly are some things that will continue to function for a while–for example roads, and bicycles that currently are operating. But the whole idea that fossil fuels will still be available, but at a higher price, and if we can “use less,” we will be OK, doesn’t really make sense to me. Certainly tools we have today will continue to work for a while, and solar panels will work for a while, and they can operate devices that will work for a while. We can in theory make more things like wheelbarrows, by cutting down a lot of our trees and making charcoal to use in metal working. But even this would not get us back to our current level–the metals we would get would be mostly some reprocessed mixed metals. Deforestation would likely become a problem very quickly. 

So I don’t really know how we should be planning for what is ahead, other than enjoying what we have now. A lot of people have different ideas for the future. Perhaps some of them will work. I can’t say that they won’t work, but a person has to be aware of the types of challenges we seem to be facing. - Gail Tverberg

Så professorens gjeldsbaserte økonomi står for fall. Da står vi kun tilbake med en gaveøkonomi, som er noe helt annet enn bytteøkonomi, som er avhengig av det industrielle system for å fungere. Professoren er tragikomisk, han bygger på utdaterte modeller. Tverberg er aktuar og matematiker, og den som i dag best forstår bedriften Jorden!