Email a copy of 'What Annoys Me - … #5 People Who Keep Talking About Sustainability, Yet Do Nothing.' to a friend

* Required Field

Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.

Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.

E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...

1 Kommentar zu “What Annoys Me – … #5 People Who Keep Talking About Sustainability, Yet Do Nothing.”

  1. Chris Wood (Saturday July 23rd, 2011)

    I am a follower of Roland. Unless it is raining hard, I cycle daily 15 km instead of driving. I drink tap water. My daughters are slightly “green”, although I have not managed to convince them properly. In other ways, I try to live economically. This eases my conscience slightly regarding the people of the world who live in poverty, while we waste resources. Despite sustained pricks of conscience, I do little for the poor. But I pay my taxes and hope that Germany will do something for the poor of the world.
    In one way I am greener than Roland; I have caused less population growth.
    I can answer Roland’s question about where we borrow money from. Mostly Germans and Germany borrow money from banks and Germans. This is still so, although things have become rather more international in recent decades. (For instance German bank-lending to the Greek state is only about 5€ per German head). The poor and the state borrow from the rich. The young borrow from the old. The very poor hardly borrow because they cannot offer security.
    For instance IFAG, (effectively its shareholders), has money deposited at (lent to) the bank, ready for hard times. The banks lend out much more money than they borrow, (perhaps a factor 10). They operate on the principle that their creditors will not all demand their money at once. They give promises of payment, which are regarded by all as “real” money. They offer higher interest rates to those who commit their loans longer. If the banks all crashed, all the creditors would lose their money, while the borrowers would not (could not) pay back their loans. To extreme socialists, this may seem OK, spreading wealth more equally. But it would destroy the (capitalist) system, undermining the way we live, and producing extreme poverty. Only a few people with guns would profit, and most people would starve.
    It may be objected that most people survived the Russian revolution. But things have progressed since then. Of course, if a complete bank crash could be limited to one country, things would not be so bad, but this seems impossible.
    It used to be rather unfair that the rich got richer by lending money. But that hardly happens now. The interest and dividends are usually consumed by inflation and taxes. Moderate wealth gives a sense of security, (the money is there when needed), but it hardly permits sustained luxury and idleness over generations.
    (I invite corrections).

Kommentar verfassen