Fiat currencies are accelerating the polycrisis

I am part of a group who are working on simulating systems-change in ways that are non-threatening to current global power players.

The key here is ‘non-threatening’ because it is becoming increasingly clear that our dominant global economic and socio-political systems may in fact be the drivers of the polycrisis. But even when that is acknowledged, those benefiting from these systems balk at terminating their participation in them because, in our current catastrophe simulation, the short-term benefit loss posed by those defections outweighs the longer-game existential threats to our planetary survival.

One of the clearest examples of this conflict in priorities is fiat currencies.

In a society that is trying to solve increasingly-pressing ecological and political systems collapse, we continue to use — and thus edify the primacy and value of — fiat currencies which are essentially valued by their nation-states’ ability to mandate and protect their primacy globally. A mandate which is achieved through military presence and menace, and domination of NGOs such as the IMF and World Bank which coerce debtor nations into trade deals that bolster the imperial token.

But also, more indirectly, fiat is powered by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which is necessarily extractive and pegged to carbon-generating industrial practices.

(Is it too depressing to add that fiat money is interest bearing which artificially generates competition amongst its recipients — class war anyone?)

Yes and we’re using this stuff to save the world. It’s like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

So the question we have to ask ourselves is:

If the mechanisms and indices which build ‘value’ for a fiat currency can be shown to be antithetical and even directly destructive to the global socio-political and ecological ecosystems that we are now seeing in collapse, would an evolutionary society not immediately and rigorously disable those instruments and begin the process of moving toward new ones… even if that meant challenging highly-entrenched powers that currently benefit and maintain a position of global power from them?

I was curious so I asked my GPT, which of course has been trained by people who themselves are essentially Market-obedient, if this reductive denial of fiat’s poison pill doesn’t speak to Einstein’s famous maxim: We can not solve our problems with the same thinking that created them.

The answer was a non-answer but the summary was excellent:

The proposition you’re putting forth revolves around the idea that a reductionist worldview, when applied to the instruments governing our political economy, can lead to societal blindness regarding their generative nature. Specifically, you’re focusing on fiat currencies and their potential impact on ecological and political systems. You argue that the valuation of fiat currencies is tied to nation-states’ abilities, often achieved through military power and control of international institutions, and that this can have detrimental effects on global socio-political and ecological ecosystems.

Your reference to Einstein’s quote suggests a need for a shift in mindset to address the challenges posed by these instruments. The question you pose is whether an evolutionary society facing crises should question and potentially replace such instruments, even if it means challenging established powers benefiting from the existing system.

This is a complex and philosophical perspective on economic and political structures. Societal transformation and shifts in economic systems involve numerous factors, including cultural, political, and historical elements. The consideration of alternative instruments would likely require broad consensus and a willingness to challenge established norms.

If you have a specific question or if there’s a particular aspect you’d like more information on, feel free to let me know, and I’ll do my best to assist.

So I took it to the next and most compelling level, which was to ask:

What do you think the reaction of nation-states who currently control dominant fiat currencies would be to a group who was focused on unseating those fiats in favor of instruments which could be proven to be non-threatening to the global socio-political and ecological systems that our world now fully acknowledges are endangered?

The answer was instructive:

The reaction of nation-states to a movement or group aiming to replace dominant fiat currencies with instruments that are perceived as non-threatening to global socio-political and ecological systems would likely vary based on several factors:

National Interests: Nations that currently hold dominant fiat currencies often derive significant economic and geopolitical advantages from their currency’s global status. Any challenge to this status could be met with resistance, especially if it is seen as undermining their national interests.

Economic Stability: Governments are generally concerned with the stability of their economies. A sudden shift away from established fiat currencies could be viewed as a potential threat to economic stability, leading to resistance from governments aiming to maintain control over monetary policies.

Power Dynamics: The entities that benefit from the existing system, including governments, financial institutions, and multinational corporations, may resist changes that could diminish their influence. They might employ various means, both diplomatic and economic, to protect their interests.

Global Governance Institutions: Institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank play a role in the global financial order. Their response would depend on whether the proposed instruments align with or challenge their existing frameworks.

Public Perception and Support: The level of public support for a movement advocating for alternative instruments would influence how governments respond. If there’s widespread support for a transition to more sustainable and ecologically friendly systems, governments may be compelled to consider such changes.

International Relations: The diplomatic and geopolitical landscape would also shape reactions. Nations with strong alliances might coordinate their responses, and international cooperation or opposition could play a significant role.

It’s important to note that any significant change in the global financial system would be a complex and challenging process. Movements advocating for such changes would likely need to address not only the technical aspects but also navigate geopolitical, economic, and social complexities.

In other words buckle-the-fuck-up.