Saving money is good for the environment
Wasting capital (money) is the worst form of waste. It amplifies all other forms of waste. Saving money is the best thing that you can do to help the environment.
And, um, you might actually get rich as a side-effect.
Here is a great blog for Building Better Builders
Here is a blog called Notes for Investors
This section of the Namke World Productivity web site will soon be discussing profitable ways to have fun, inventions that are needed and profitable ways to end poverty.
NwpSearch already has some tuned searches to help you find good information about money, commodities and global banking.
Wasting your capital (money) does more harm to the world than wasting time or wasting natural resources. As stated above, wasting capital amplifies all other forms of waste.
Namke’s opinion : Capitalism is simply another word for * structural risk management by governments *. The word capitalism has been hijacked by selfish people - just like they hijack lots of other things (like entire religious movements). Every benefit that we have from using money for trading stuff (our time and our goods) is a side-effect of good risk management by governments.
It is a simple rule of the human universe : Governments exist to reduce structural risk in the system. Companies exist to take targeted risk. The biggest profits for companies are made by targeting our least productive activities.
Example : Before the Internet, looking for information was very expensive and it often took so long that the information was useless before you got it! It was the least productive activity on Earth. Google made a fortune by making it quick and easy to find information.
If governments reduce structural risk, companies can take bigger risks. So, it is obvious that the base of all wealth creation and productivity improvement is a government that works to reduce structural risk.
The most environmentally friendly question in the world is this: Am I voting for a government that is actively working to reduce structural risk (waste, illiteracy, pollution, social injustice, etc.)?
To make this more concrete, here are some recent examples from Canada.
a) The Liberal Party of Canada wanted reduce structural risk by starting a national early learning system for children. The Conservative Party of Canada trashed this idea.
b) The Liberal Party of Canada wanted to use any single annual budget surplus to reduce risk by investing it in three ways : reduce the debt, reduce taxes, and improve infrastructure. The Conservative Party trashed this very, very sensible idea.
c) One of the very first things that the Conservative Party did was get rid of the ‘speculator tax’ - needlessly increasing structural risk in a very successful economy (especially in our mortgage markets).
d) The Conservative Party is now promising tax cuts * before the money is in the bank * (just like the Republican Party did in the USA - leading to huge deficits and a crash of the US dollar).
It is quite possible that the Conservative Party of Canada will now have trouble getting votes from intelligent people. Canada is doing very well right now (due to the hard work that the Liberal Party of Canada did for 10 long years to get Canada’s debt under control). So, it might sound strange, but it is highly possible that the Conservative Party of Canada will lose the next election without understanding why they lost it!
Namke’s rule of politics #1 : (Even though nobody talks about it or understands it very well) In the information age, the chances of a government winning an election is directly proportional to how well their policies will reduce structural risk for companies.
Stay tuned!
|
