Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
No, a market will not develop, because the product is not standardized

What is not standardised about a unit of energy?

I am proposing a Pool denominated in units of energy, and investors will pay conventional money to buy these units, exactly as they would buy shares in Exchange Traded Funds. While hedgers will buy them in order to lock in price.

The resulting funds will then be invested - without using the conflicted "Debt/Equity" paradigm - to create production of units of energy.

I am proposing "ownership" of productive assets in trust on behalf of the communities, with production shared equitably as between those responsible for bringing it about.

Sure, each project is different, and needs to be appraised in terms of expected costs, and expected production. Your job.

But it is IMHO possible to achieve the same goals using a structure an order of magnitude simpler than now: this doesn't appeal to people who have no stake in the outcome, or to intermediaries.

Leasing is just a financial object, not a risk allocation technique.

Sure: leasing the way you are accustomed to doing it does not share risk. I believe that it is possible to confugure things differently, through partnership arrangements.

This is, quite simply, ridiculous.

Sure it's a leap from a single turbine to a thousand, and to a Pool of Pools capable of funding the necessary infrastructure.

You have a multi-faceted vision of how a deficit-based model may "Energise America".  I do not call that "ridiculous" even though you base it on a manifestly unsustainable financial paradigm which is even now - as you yourself document - breaking down around us.

A deficit-based economy cannot - the mathematics of compound interest prevent it - work in the long term in a world of finite resources, and is the principal direct cause of our problems.

That is a fact.

We need another way of doing it, and not only am I putting forward a view as to how that might work, I am doing my level best to make it happen, and getting a lot of traction, albeit at the "micro" level we are initially aiming at in Scotland and Norway.

I thought the whole point was to get rid of the evil investment bankers?

Now that snark really is not worthy of you. My view, expressed clearly and often, is that bankers have a perfectly valid role to play, but credit creation is not it.

Just in case you tuned out, bankers may IMHO add value:

(a) in managing mutually guaranteed bilateral credit creation;

(b) in appraising projects to build productive assets and to bring investors together with investment using "asset-based" finance through "unitising", as opposed to "securitising" production.

If we're in the picture, why not stick with our existing solutions, which do not require anybody to step out of their normal professional position, allow risk allocation on a case-by-case basis in accordance with each entity's needs and priorities, and, you know, actually happen and work?

But the point is that the toxic combination of Debt and shareholder value "Equity" combine to ensure that they do not "work" other than to concentrate ownership of resources in fewer and fewer hands.

And State solutions, IMHO, are little better.

Credit creation by Banks, coupled with private property in "Commons", and "free" limitation of liability - is why we are in this mess, and credit creation by Banks will not get us out of it.

If all we ever did is persist with "existing solutions" we wouldn't get very far.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sat Jan 19th, 2008 at 10:02:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Top Diaries

Occasional Series