The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Adopting energy units as a commodity-money would lead under current circumstances to a constantly deflating monetary unit, which would be destabilizing precisely in those periods of real resource constraints when financial side instability would be particularly unwelcome. They would be far more useful as an asset than as a form of money. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
I was more focusing on the question of why anyone would set forward an intrinsically valuable monetary unit as a feature rather than as a bug after the history of repeated depressions and hyperinflations under the Gold Standard replaced, in the core industrial nations, by neither depression nor hyperinflation under sovereign fiat currency.
Libertarianism has nothing much to do with that: as a matter of empirical record, monetary systems based on media with independent value are miserable failures at delivering stability and reasonably sustained participation across the income ladder. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Are you therefore a gold bug? or an energy bug? or something else?
Adopting energy units as a commodity-money would lead under current circumstances to a constantly deflating monetary unit, which would be destabilizing precisely in those periods of real resource constraints when financial side instability would be particularly unwelcome. They would be far more useful as an asset than as a form of money.
There is a difference between an Energy Standard - which is a Unit of measure of Value - and a Unit of currency, which is what I prefer to think of as 'money's worth'.
A Value Standard cannot deflate, any more than a kilogramme or a metre - it is, by definition, an absolute.
A Unit of currency, on the other hand can deflate or inflate by reference to a Value Standard.
Why do you say energy currency units must necessarily deflate?
There is a virtually infinite amount of renewable energy - not to mention energy savings - available to be monetised/unitised in the course of financing the transition from carbon. "The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
There is a difference between an Energy Standard - which is a Unit of measure of Value - and a Unit of currency, which is what I prefer to think of as 'money's worth'. A Value Standard cannot deflate, any more than a kilogramme or a metre - it is, by definition, an absolute.
A "Unit Measure of Value" implies that value is commensurate with a scalar, which is one of the empirical flaws of the utility maximizing theory of behavior ... since "Value" is a reification of the process of valuing.
You are of course free to make up existing words to mean anything you wish them to mean, but you cannot impute your definitions when someone is using a more common sense of the word. I mean standard of value in the more common sense of standard of value.
What matters for Energy units as a standard of value is the terms of trade of the energy harvest with all other produced goods and services, and part of the transition to a sustainable economy will be an increase in those terms of trade. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by gmoke - Jun 22
by gmoke - Jun 19
by gmoke - Jun 6
by Oui - Jun 22
by Oui - Jun 2216 comments
by Oui - Jun 21
by Oui - Jun 208 comments
by Oui - Jun 209 comments
by Oui - Jun 19
by Oui - Jun 192 comments
by Oui - Jun 187 comments
by Oui - Jun 181 comment
by Oui - Jun 1710 comments
by Oui - Jun 166 comments
by Oui - Jun 16
by Oui - Jun 162 comments
by Oui - Jun 1515 comments
by Oui - Jun 141 comment
by Oui - Jun 14