I am So Lucky That I found your blog and great articles. I will come to your blog often for finding new great articles from your blog.I am adding your rss feed in my reader Thank you…

Can a Steady-State Economy even work if it uses Money?

It seems to me that any economy that uses money
would always have some Inflation, which can only be compensated by some form of Growth in the money supply and energy input.

When money is used and circulated, its embodied energy seems to leak away somehow, since any useful work done with that money must consume some Resources and Energy.

Resources and Energy must be bougt with money.

So, any set ammount of money circulating in a system would soon fade away because of inflation, which can only be compensated by inputting energy and resources, but these must be paid for with that same money.

So the money would consume itself, devoured by
entropic decay, needing replacement.

The resources and energy consumed in replacing the money are lost, without ever producing anything directly, wich seems like a entropic leak at some level.

The Use of Money causes Inflation, when all goes well.

Inflation Neccesitates Growth, in some form.

Inflation is partially a form of entropic decay in the Money Supply.

Is there any truth in these statements, and if so,

Does this hold with Fiat Money, or all forms of it?

Can a Steady-State only exist if there is no Money, or if all Resources and Energy are not paid for with money?

Does Money in general emit a form of Gravitational Field,
that attracts other Money? would this be a Problem?

Is Money also a form of Memetic Virus, like Organized Religion?

Is any of this valid? Anyone? please help!

This debate – whether economics contains the biosphere or the other way round is as old as economics itself and goes back to the time of Descartes and Bacon. The debate was initially about who/what prevailed: God, Man or nature. God was discarded early on and man ultimately “won”. This is the source of the classical and neoclassical economic principle thatt resources are infinite. The earliest teachings (Francis Bacon) say that nature is there purely to serve man and that man must take as he wants from natures bounty.

This was all very well when global population was less than 1bn; and in those terms it was true. Now with 7bn in sight, it is no longer true. Sadly, many neoclassical economists, especially those of the Austrian school, still believe there are no limits. Has anybody else found economists of the Austrian school especially blinkered, arrogant, rude and unpleasant?

Thanks again,
Rob

Good post, Rob. That simple, key point you describe concerning the relationship between the economy and the biosphere seems to me to have the potential to generate broad debate and, I hope, more exposure in the media.

Keep it up!