Lowering working hours seems to have worked just fine in the past. Just like increasing them worked before that. At the extremes sustainability needs to be achieved within the alloted man-hours, and on the other hand people need sleep. (edit: actually no, you just need to maintain profitability at the rate you can afford to work people to death, if its cheaper to get new workers then that "works" Slavery worked, and it works around the world to this day. Its a matter of how ridiculous you want to span the gap, but in any event)
A voluntary consultant job is not the same as an institutionalized 12+ hours a day.
There are profits enough to do that; in most sectors, the companies don't re-invest their profits in the real economy but put them in the virtual financial economy (speculation etc) because it is more profitable -- they are effectively sitting on piles of cash.
Nonsense. Companies don't sit on piles of cash. Even Sony makes actually more money by making investment with their cash than by selling their own products. At least no serious company does that. I'm not talking about your local pub manager.
Plus, even IF they were sitting on pile of cash, safely stored in the bank, it would be a net positive for the people, since the banks would actually have real funds to loan to people who want to start up their business. Banks need capital, and to have capital you need savings first. If everyone was consuming everything they earned, there would be no savings and therefore no investment possible, because investment stems from the savings of someone else.
Fractional reserve banking thresholds are based on that not everyone do the same thing. Those thresholds are set by a state entity, which in practice, historically shows private banks cant operate in a healthy economy. Banks leading to their own demise, corruption, or failing unrelated areas of practice, is not a healthy prospect.
A monetary system only stays healthy on the basis of its own economics, but just because that for the purpose of your flawed premise, everyone spending everything, which means the money "safely stored in a bank" isn't safe anymore, doesn't mean capital investment has to be directed through a traditional bank which operates based on your belief. Im not opposed to savings being the investment of unknown, but the path you dictate is flawed. Investment is possible by private wealth and crowd sourcing, even today. Money in the traditional bank having a positive side is good, but it doesn't excuse the broken financial economy, which is the problem it creates.
All the money, resources, interest on further energy extraction, wont be spent, thats the premise of even a bank, it is dependent on either one company owning everything, in turn discarding a free market, or all the national resources spent, which wont happen. A case remains for no (effective) state entities, and free market unregulated. The democratic state doesn't exist if its subordinate to (private) interest of a few players. And its certainly hard enough to argue for free market economics alone.
If money is lent out at a rate it isn't returned, you have a problem, a banking approach to this is invent new interest on interest that cant be returned, loans you say? "Funds" is the moniker to avoiding think of them as peoples livelihood, even down to the price of basic foods. A state that doesn't have regard for at least its own, has a fundamental problem.
After a while bad economy cant die, and dictates the top end, where the bank is playing a profitable game it cant lose. The net interest of this in practice is to the select few, rather than people in general. An American state approach to this is to invest state money in trying to save this practice.
Give them the national bank, the treasury. Next up, pensioners fund? Cant even fight the hand enough to establish a national health care. Which is more effective to the net interest of everyone. That isn't civilized, as in civilized society.
Far less civilized is the civil society exploiting the world elsewhere and portraying it as its own labour.
Sony effectively sitting on piles of cash, and investing it, for a variation of the theme "sit on money" is a fundamental case of power fundamented into ever growing corruption. In the long run they cant afford not to. And the biggest ones left, will be the ugliest ones, monopolization till you gain the go to jail free-card in being too big to fail.
South-Korea, a country where corruption is perfected, even has banking concerns needing to get into other businesses. Super duper healty. What could possibly go wrong.
I don't know who of you is more correct, but sony just bought half of olympus, when they have a photo division, effectivly something they could afford anyways because they are in the market of entirely different products. I think they partly own zeiss too. Its funny how much plan economy they enforce, because that is more effective, but for the wrong reasons obviously. No country would be allowed to operate like that in the world economy, unless it was the biggest driving economy. A rather darwinist reality, where the predator wins over whoever doesn't cooperate against its tactics.
The irony is compelling, yet people seem to think the premise of competition not yet corrupted can just take its turn, once foundations are laid out. Foundations here being either the start of civilized society or after a crash, when plan economy saves the day.
Maybe after enough worldwide bank-fails we will finally have established enough governing on them to have a chance of healthy economy.
