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.
(*) I submit that, for psychological reasons, the "energy-accounting-unit" value of a physical energy unit will converge to 1:1 pretty quickly. Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
Firstly, it doesn't matter how many energy certificates investors hold: they have no right to delivery, merely the right to present the certificates in payment for supply.
But in fact the redeemability of prepay certificates means that they are an excellent investment, because even if other investors are not prepared to buy at the unit market price, if the unit price falls below the physical market price, customers will buy them for redemption.
Think of an ETF with units returnable in the underlying: or a REIT with units returnable in payment for rent.
Secondly, I think we will see an energy clearing union wherein producers/issuers agree to accept each others' certificates in payment for supply, and then account with each other.
Such an energy clearing union would operate as a 'guarantee society' as a variation on a risk sharing P & I Club , managed by a service provider.
The first defence against over-issue is transparency - since sunlight is the best disinfectant, all energy clearing union issuance would be available for scrutiny. Service providers like Thomas Miller would then act in accordance with agreed rules to manage issuance.
Finally, there is the point that certificates are returnable in payment at the location of the consumer, but issued by producers at different locations.
What this means is that it is necessary for a change in the distribution/utility business model away from intermediation.
But this is already happening, because to transform from an intermediary to a service provider is actually in the interests of the intermediary, because service provision is 'capital lite'.
That is precisely why banks got into the business of selling quasi-equity instruments such as index funds and ETFs to passive investors - it means the maret risk is with the unwitting investor, not them. "The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
it doesn't matter how many energy certificates investors hold: they have no right to delivery, merely the right to present the certificates in payment for supply.
This is where my little brain blows up once again.
The only way I can decipher the real dealings involved in your scheme takes me somewhere to an empty supermarket in Joe Stalin's Russia.
It does take a bit of getting your head around, because you're probably looking for complexity which is not there.
Prepayment is just what it says.
You pay money (or money's worth) now, and take delivery of goods or services later, receiving a certificate of entitlement (on your mobile phone) in the meantime. The certificate does not entitle you to demand delivery (as a futures contract would) but if you do take delivery from the issuer (or from another affiliated within a clearing union), he undertakes to accept the certificate in payment.
You will probably only accept such a certificate if a discount or profit is agreed which compensates you for the delay. You achieve your discount/profit when you return it to the issuer. It is the return of prepay credit instruments to the issuer which gave rise to the the phrases 'tax return' and 'rate of return'.
At the moment prepay is already normal in relation to consumables, but not recognised a the investment it also is.
Mobile phone prepay is everywhere typically for those who cannot afford or do not want an account. Meanwhile poor people are not only obliged to prepay for electricity because they can't get credit: to add insult to injury pay more for the privilege. Similarly prepaid debit cards for the un-banked.
More to the point, the fiat currency which we currently use represents in reality - whether it is created and issued by private banks or the central bank as fiscal agents of the Treasury - prepayment of taxes.
Reality-based Economics and the Last Big Thing
There's nothing whatever new about prepayment. It's how the financial system worked formally or informally for hundreds, if not thousands of years, and still does in many parts of the world.
My case is that we began a 300 year aberration from the original undated 'stock' (prepay) into the conventional equity (shares of 'common' or 'joint' stock) and debt (interest bearing 'loan' stock such as 'gilt-edged' stock) forms of finance capital.
That era ended five years ago because it resulted in unsustainable concentration of wealth on a cosmic scale. We are now transitioning to a knowledge-based, energy-denominated economy of abundance from an economy of scarcity, and I think the endgame is probably that we will eventually cease to keep score at all.
Finally, it's not 'my scheme'. I'm simply describing, updating and re-introducing in electronic form the way things used to be done but which has been forgotten for centuries. "The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
The money people put in is credited to their account and the goods they receive are debited. There is no absolute guarantee of delivery: if a producer has problems and can't deliver, all concerned may decide he can keep the prepay without supplying the goods, because the aim of the system is to support local family-level quality farming. (At least, this is a principle written into our contracts -- in practice, producers prefer to waive their rights in this kind of case.)
What my comment above was getting at was that your system is certificate-based, and the certificates are bought and sold on a market. You say there is no guarantee of delivery. I can only imagine you mean dated delivery, because if the certificate is redeemable against supply (delivery? is there a difference?) and there is no supply, we'll see an almighty crash on the market for these certificates. In fact, without a guarantee of supply/delivery, no one will buy the things in the first place.
Or, as you say below in a reply to askod,
ChrisCook:
When examining and judging energy prepay unit issuance you have to have regard to the rate, and the likelihood, of a flow of energy over time. This implies what I have heard described as 'confidence accounting'. ie the probability that a particular flow will be achieved.
This implies what I have heard described as 'confidence accounting'. ie the probability that a particular flow will be achieved.
In fact, a right to delivery is essential, or no one will have any confidence in the system. So I don't think you've answered Mig's question:
Migeru:
how do you prevent more money to be created than there is available energy, and how do you prevent energy certificate hoarding and "cornering the market" so to speak.
Clearly there is a need for a guarantee of performance, but a unit of currency - whether in bearer (certificate) form or registered to an account - does not confer upon the issuer a dated obligation to supply upon presentation of the instrument as does a (dated) futures contract.
What it does do is confer an obligation on the issuer to accept it in payment for supply.
In relation to Mig's point, we have to look at availability over time,
There's no reason why an energy generator could not sell entitlements to 10 years' worth of production, or a property owner 10 years' worth of rent.
But they will do so at a discount which reflects the return demanded by investors in respect of that form of value; their judgement of the likelihood of continuing production (or in the case of a property, occupation); and their expectations as to what the unit of currency will be worth in the future by reference to a unit of account. "The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
There's no reason why an energy generator could not sell entitlements to 10 years' worth of production
My electricity producer recently offered a low fixed ten year price in return for an upfront payment that they could use to build another wind power plantation. So something like that then? Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
My electricity producer recently offered a low fixed ten year price in return for an upfront payment...
But it should now be clear that there is no distinction between "delivery" and "supply". If there is any doubt that the commodity will be delivered/supplied, the sale of certificates will be difficult to say the least. So waffly language such as
'confidence accounting'. ie the probability that a particular flow will be achieved
expectation of access to delivery
there is a need for a guarantee of performance
won't cut it. You actually have to garantee investors that there is sufficient supply to cover the certificates issued -- and more importantly, investors have to be convinced of that, or they will put their money elsewhere.
The function of these certificates as a form of money would therefore be strictly limited by a quantity of kWh, or rented accommodation/duration. The difference between this and the gold standard isn't clear to me.
The social usefulness of the certificates would seem at best to be simply a form of advance subscription with an advantage attached (discount). But who is addressed by the system? People with enough money to subscribe in order to gain a future advantage. One of the privileges of those who have enough money is in fact to save money by bulk buying, for instance, while those who live from hand to mouth pay top dollar for necessities (old example of the shilling in the gas meter?). Given that those who have no money ahead of them are far more likely to be living in rented accommodation than to be home-owners, what access will they have to your proposed rental scheme? In other words, what increased equality ie power-sharing would be achieved by it?
And no, "transparency" doesn't cut it because the producer will always enjoy an asymmetric information advantage. And not everyone is a hedge fund. Buyers also have differring levels of informacion. Finance is the brain [tumour] of the economy
Moreover, no matter how many I buy, I can't corner the market with an undated instrument.
Fiat currency is and always has been a tax prepayment - whoever issues it (whether public or private) - and it is irrelevant how many units of it I hold, although historically I would have expected some sort of return to be convinced to do so.
Transparency is necessary, but not sufficient. There is also a requirement for a manager to conduct due diligence and a monetary authority to supervise the manager in accordance with agreed standards. "The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
Transparency is necessary, but not sufficient. There is also a requirement for a manager to conduct due diligence and a monetary authority to supervise the manager in accordance with agreed standards.
Specifically, goons with guns will take your stuff and put you in the slammer.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
Over its design life, a wind turbine will produce a 'pool' of energy production, and part of that will be shared with landlords/communities/maintenance contractors.
The balance is then available to be 'unitised' into prepay electricity units which may - if the electricity sale price is adequate - be sold forward to fund the turbine.
The process of project assessment will be similar to that which Jerome probably makes every day of the week using conventional finance capital. "The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
What askod describes seems to be simply a discount-for-early-subscription offer.
by Oui - Oct 26 9 comments
by gmoke - Oct 26
by Oui - Oct 3111 comments
by Oui - Oct 269 comments
by Oui - Oct 267 comments
by Oui - Oct 2537 comments
by Oui - Oct 253 comments
by Oui - Oct 249 comments
by Oui - Oct 244 comments
by Oui - Oct 20
by Oui - Oct 195 comments
by Oui - Oct 193 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 1810 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 18
by Oui - Oct 184 comments
by Oui - Oct 18
by Oui - Oct 174 comments
by Oui - Oct 17
by Oui - Oct 163 comments
by Oui - Oct 161 comment
by Oui - Oct 159 comments