I think your distinction between Energy Capital and Energy Income is a fundamental one that deserves more exposure. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Actually, from many thousands of kilometers away and sketchy information, my take on the EU constitutional vote was that it wasn't so much a rejection of a necessary (?) constitution, but rather a rejection of Maastricht and Nice. Of the two, Maastricht was by FAR the worse--it was nothing less than the end of modern Europe--no WONDER people were so angry. "Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
The problem with that vote, of course, is that in practice they voted against the new bits that they usually liked (strengthened European Parliament, charter of human rights, etc...) but in FAVOR of the Maastricht and Nice Treaty, because these remain in force in the absence of the new Constitution.
They voted against their explicit goals, something that I still am angry about. And they make euroskepticism good politics and most of our new leaders are thus weakly pro-European, which only compounds the problem, as national selfishness (which was never low, starting with the French) has vastly increased. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I claimed in the movie that the energy we use is solar energy--it is just that most of it is STORED solar energy. According to the video, the only way to get to a society where we can live on our solar income is to invest in technology built with our solar capital.
This may sound a bit complex for children but it was VERY easy to bring these ideas down to that level. "Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
Moreover, if energy producing assets are kept in Trust/Community Ownership, with Investor and Manager Partners receiving proportional shares and the balance remaining with the Community, then we could see an "Energy Dividend" or basic Energy Income to all.
In fact I am not the only one to advocate an International Energy Clearing Union, but I believe that this is the logical candidate for the basis of global trade in the future when the dollar reaches the end of the road.
Domestic trade, I think, will be based upon the flows of property rentals.
But in both cases we are essentially talking about monetary flows - of "Dynamic Value", where "Value" is "Money's Worth" such as energy. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
This is why USA can get away with recklessly "printing" more currency. So long as a dollar can still buy oil, it is valuable. (If you want to read the whole argument, follow the links to the book below.)
This situation with the USA dollar is absurd, of course. But I really LIKE the idea that money is some sort of representative of energy. Because this means that whenever we can gather solar energy in some physically efficient manner (such as with wind turbines) we are doing more than inventing a solution for atmospheric carbon overload, we are also validating the currency. "Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
