3 ms·
I haven't seen anyone mention an ecological perspective, so here's "The Trophic Theory of Money": > The theory, in a nutshell, is that the volume of real money
by shoo 11y ago
I haven't seen anyone mention an ecological perspective, so here's "The Trophic Theory of Money":
> The theory, in a nutshell, is that the volume of real money (adjusted for inflation) in an economy is a pretty good indicator of the ecological impact of that economy.
> In ecology, or the economy of nature, “trophic” refers to the flow of energy and nutrients. The lowest trophic level is the producers, or plants that produce their own food in the process of photosynthesis. Herbivorous animals eat plants, and carnivorous animals eat herbivores. That’s the economy of nature in a nutshell.
> In the human economy, the producers are farmers. Only with an agricultural surplus can there be a division of labor into manufacturing and service sectors.
> All of these real goods and services occupy some portion of the economic trophic structure. Because this trophic structure as a whole can only increase with increasing agricultural and extractive surplus, an expanding real money supply represents an increasing environmental impact.
http://steadystate.org/the-trophic-theory-of-money/ http://steadystate.org/the-trophic-theory-of-money/
This clearly is not the only perspective of what money "is", or even a mainstream one. But it seems like a reasonable stab at a functional description of what money "means" in an environmental sense.
- jules 11y agoI don't think that's an accurate viewpoint any more. Farming is already on the order of 1% of the workforce for developed nations. Making that 0.1% won't make a big difference. Extraction of raw materials in general, maybe, but a bigger factor than how much materials are extracted is how those materials are used. Look at how Silicon atoms can be used: as sand, as glass, or as computer chips. The economy can grow without extracting additional raw materials by using those materials in different ways.
- dredmorbius 11y agoFarming remains a large share of the workforce, to 90% and more, for less-developed nations. In the time of Smith and Ricardo, farms and the land were the source of all wealth. Ricardo lamented over the inequitable distribution of good farmland... And developed nations are dependent upon petroleum and other fossil fuels. Effectively farming ancient plant growth by way of buried reserves. My read though of the Trophic Theory is that it's less one of money than of wealth creation (that is, economic productivity), assuming a sustainable economic system. Though I may have to give it a longer look. Eric Zencey, one of the contributors to the Daly News piece cited is also the author of the Soddy critique I just referenced in another comment.