Monoculture of Money Creates Economic Instability - Bernard Lietaer...

Lietaer, Bernard – Money: Structural Instability: the Facts

On-going financial crisis is the biggest, but not the first.

* Since 1970, IMF identified:

         - 145 banking crashes

         - 204 monetary collapses

         -   72 sovereign debt crises

* 48 massive meltdowns between 1637 and 1929.

"As we witness the turmoil in Europe around the single currency and the search for solutions, few people are better equipped than economist, systems thinker and currency designer Bernard Lietaer, to shed light on the crisis and to share his vision for New Money For A New World."

"In advocating diversity both in scale and type in our monetary ecology, Bernard showcased several innovative solutions, including examples of rethinking money already in play, that can "stop the juggernaut towards global self-destruction."

More information on Bernard Lietaer and his works can be found at


Views: 80

Replies to This Discussion

Every dollar spent on an item made by big corporations sucks the money out of our communities into the vaults of oligarchs. To keep money in our communities, buy goods and services produced in or near by.  

The LETS (Local Exchange Trading System) model of private currencies may have limited functionality, but I don't see this as a model capable of replacing international currencies. I do think money needs to be rethought, but I see it working to "stop the juggernaut towards global self-destruction" only if overpopulation and resource depletion (including environmental damage) are taken into account. If one could not have a child unless you accumulated enough eco-steward credits, for example, a parallel system of worth would help to balance the incentive to overproduce. People who profit from damaging the Earth could be fined in this money. If owning shares of Exxon-Mobil meant you couldn't have children, or your children couldn't have grandchildren, the "value" of all those fossil fuel reserves in the ground would be rethought.

Here's an example of how framing the fight against Climate Destabilization purely in terms of money is shooting ourselves in the foot.

Rich vs. poor: Divide deepens over who should pay for climate change


One of the most contentious issues at U.N. talks has long been climate finance, or money put aside to help developing countries cut emissions and adapt to a changing climate.

The rich fear it would be costly and make them legally liable for droughts, heatwaves and storms. 

For many poorer countries, the devastation caused by Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines earlier this month has raised the urgency of compensation. 

Global economic losses caused by extreme weather have risen to nearly $200 billion a year over the last decade and look set to increase further as climate change worsens, the World Bank said this week. 

"The compensation that those countries require is something that is absolutely fundamental and crucial," said India's environment minister, Jayanthi Natarajan. 

But many richer countries are reluctant to foot the bill and are focused on spurring growth in their stagnant economies.

As long as overpopulation is invisible, there is no universal "currency" which every country already has. There is little potential for two way give and take. If permissible reproduction depended on the total capacity of our planet to support human life, deforestation or fossil fuel consumption in developing countries would directly impact the rights to reproduce in developed countries. Then hopeful wealthy adults would have an intimate stake in environmental degredation everywhere in the world. They would no longer feel shielded by power and wealth. Prevention of further loss wouldn't depend on guilt but on pesonal desire to have children.




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service