Here’s looking at you, kid.

Besides being a branding guy, I’m bit of a macroeconomics fanboy πŸ€“, so I like to think about things such as inflation. πŸ’ΈπŸ’ΈπŸ’Έ If it (inflation) doesn’t increase a LOT within the next decade, that could be a pretty bad sign for the future of life on our planet and anywhere else we might try to move to. πŸ™ Stay with me…

We need to call it “Climate Disruption.”

For starters, to have a fighting chance πŸ₯Š against climate disruption –“climate change” is far too weak a term, particularly under the circumstances– we’ve got to drop the requirement that green technologies (e.g. hydrogen fuel) be profitable. Otherwise, we’ll never scale them up fast enough. This requires that government take the lead, printing as much money as needed to get the job done.

Printing money, as most of you probably know, is pro-inflationary. But so what? How would the worst climate crisis (or health crisis; see below) compare with the worst inflationary crisis in terms of lives lost?

We need to redefine “Profitability.”

Oh, and that term –“profitability”– needs to be redefined, like yesterday. The financial meaning is WAY too short-sighted. Moving forward, profitability needs to be defined telescopically, such as “the degree to which it helps preserve life on our planet.” 🌎✊

Many countries (e.g. US, Japan, China) are “graying.” πŸ‘΅πŸ» That means more retirees. As profitability falls in the myopic financial sense of the term, it will become harder for investors, such as pension funds, to get a return. Here, too, government will need to step in and print money as needed, say, for things like a Universal Retirement Income.

With climate disruption, pandemics, aging and other factors threatening our health, we’ll have to wake up to the fact that universal health care is the only sensible option, warts and all. 🐸 (I couldn’t find a toad emoji.) Again, government must step in and print money as needed.

To sum it up, these are a few of the reasons why I say that if inflation doesn’t increase a lot within the next decade, it probably means that we’ve failed on some, um, pretty important, as in, existential, issues. πŸ˜ͺ One final thought…

We need to redefine “Economics.”

In the opinion of this fanboy, economics needs to redefined as the study of “how we allocate limited resources so as to preserve life on our planet as long as possible.” Or, to use that new definition from above, it seeks to answer the question “How do we achieve maximum profitability?”😁🌎✊