Economics

have to persuade people to part with money for goods or services that are used by others

We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind… Or, we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives.

Environmental activist & former Executive Director of Greenpeace International

We can win in the struggle to avoid climate chaos, we can win in terms of economic recovery and we can win when it comes to promoting development and justice. All we need is the political will.

Environmental activist & former Executive Director of Greenpeace International

Taken together, mass migration, mass starvation and mass extinctions are what we will see if we sleep walk into a future of unmitigated climate change. These stresses will ruin economies and drive competition over dwindling resources.

Environmental activist & former Executive Director of Greenpeace International

Economies are built on free flow of capital within the market, which drives trade. Business and individuals need debt (finance) to invest, develop, trade and grow. This is a fundamental truth of how markets operate.

These revised capital adequacy guidelines will shield banks from another crisis in the format we have seen but provide little or no protection against events which could occur such as systemic capital disruptions from terrorism and conflict.

Basel III effectively means putting thicker gloves on this boxer, without fixing the fundamental problem (they cannot cope with unexpected punches, from a highly developed adversary- the economy).

These new regulations should (in theory, although there is no research to test it) prevent this psychological risk aversion by ensuring that all counterparties know that at a wholesale and institutional level, they are safe.

When we talk of economic confidence, business confidence, or even confidence in global markets, we are talking of the mindset of the majority of participants in that market. In a 'booming' market, participants feel happy, with little sense of risk- so they are happy to invest in their businesses, create jobs, buy property, and drive strong economic figures.

Those who are suffering the consequences of these price increases are rarely (if at all) responsible for their creation- leading to an exacerbated (and right) sense of injustice.

How would one expect society to develop 'actualisation' and 'esteem' driving characteristics (economic growth and spending) when the basic 'physiological' and 'safety' needs (food security, employment, health, property) are not met.

When the main participants in an economy (the general population not the investment banks) are struggling to survive- no amount of economic stimulus applied at arms-length from those participants- will inject growth.

While it may seem an altogether preposterous notion that people should have to pay for air, a very basic component of life- one must read this hypothetical tale in context of the fact that over 1.7billion people cannot afford food (also a very basic component of life)- and a similar amount have little access to clean drinking water (another very basic component of life).

The impact to one's own sense of happiness and prosperity of not being able to afford 'basic' goods is far greater than not being able to afford 'discretionary' goods. By increasing the financial stress on consumers abilities to purchase essentials- the rest of the economy suffers, as people are more likely to hoard than spend.

What we have seen here is a pseudo-nuclear war. An unwind of misused financial instruments created a huge economic shock- which will fundamentally change the next quarter century of our economic story.

In reality- the financial markets are a critical part of our global infrastructure, as much as energy, food, and communications. For any country to remain globally competitive, their financial industries must be so- as they provide the lifeblood (money) for investment in the ideas and infrastructure which will build a nation.