Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Not only are you under a complete misconception you are  rude with it. Snark I can put up with: it comes with the rations on this site; but rudeness I cannot and will not tolerate.

I have forgotten more about markets than you will ever bloody know. Manipulation? Speculation? Cornering? I managed the Gas Oil futures contract deliveries for six years as a Director of the International Petroleum Exchange and I have written the bloody book.

What is your qualification for the crap you just wrote?

Does a metre have backing? Does a kilogramme have backing? A unit of account does not have backing either. It is a standard unit of measure for value, whatever that is.  

Like a metre or kilogramme it just is.

But unlike any other such unit of account, it's actually possible to measure most kinds of value by reference to a unit of energy in a meaningful way. Do you not understand that there is a difference between 'least energy cost' and 'least $ cost' or 'least € cost'?

If not, then I'm wasting my time engaging with you at all.

Currency is NOT the same thing as value. Currency is a credit instrument returnable in exchange for value. It is an undated claim over value.

The value of energy currencies (there are potentially several types) may well be affected by advances in technology. I sincerely hope it will be or the planet is fucked. But that will not devalue energy currency per se although it will affect the relative value of different types. It will simply mean that provided the energy technology is not enclosed or suppressed (a big if) then we will all become a lot wealthier.

A unit of currency is not a unit of measure although historically the two functions have been conflated. It is a generally acceptable credit instrument/claim over value which may be exchanged by reference to a standard unit of measure.

And no, you do not need a government and/or banks to issue currency although that has been customary for 300 years.

There is no such thing as fractional reserve banking and there is no such thing as 'tax and spend'. Gold is an archaic relic with a few uses which make economic sense at a fraction of the price currently being paid for it by people with more money than sense.

So please, return to whatever gold or bitcoin mine you emerged from and don't come up with crap like that until you understand how markets work.

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

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sat Sep 7th, 2013 at 04:47:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
None of your rant is even remotely connected to anything I've said. Where did I say anything to promote fractional reserve banking or gold hoarding?

I don't care how markets work, because markets don't work. That's Polanyi's point, and it's very much the problem.

So I don't care whether people use gold, bitcoins, joules, or bags full of rabbit pelts to do their accounting.

None of it matters, except as a bit of side entertainment. What matters is how people treat each other, whether social relationships are primarily predatory and exploitative, or primarily collaborative, and how - if accounting systems are used - they either hide and justify, or reveal and challenge the nature of social relationships.

That is all.

Now, when you're done hyperventilating, read what I said, read Polanyi and Graeber, and perhaps we can have an intelligent non-theological discussion about this.

Because right now you're carrying on like a priest who has had his faith challenged, not like someone who's capable of rational argument.

Anyway. Specifically:

Does a metre have backing? Does a kilogramme have backing?

The metre is referenced to physical constants. But the process used to calculate the metre as a unit of length is an entirely arbitrary social convention.

The kg is referenced to a not particularly stable test mass. Even if it were also referenced to physical constants - which is proposed, and may happen soon - the calculation would still be arbitrary.

So yes, both units only exist because they're backed by cultural convention, not because they're objective and independent of convention.

Clearly mass and length exist independent of convention. But that's not the same thing at all.

And trading in metres would be ridiculous.

it's actually possible to measure most kinds of value by reference to a unit of energy in a meaningful way.

No it isn't, because units of energy are also an arbitrary social convention.

In fact energy is a particularly bad way to measure anything, because it comes in so many different forms of different practical usefulness that you'll never find a scientist saying 'a joule' without also specifying, even if only implicitly by context, what kind of energy it's a joule of, and by what mechanisms it can be transformed to and from matter and/or other forms of energy.

If you get irradiated by a slew of 130Gev gamma particles or struck by lightning, do you suddenly become rich in your scheme?

Of course you don't. Not only will you still die horribly, the idea is a nonsense.

So clearly you're not talking about units of actual energy at all. You're talking about bits of metaphorical paper that can be traded and happen to be denominated in energy units - just as they could be denominated in ounces of gold, or casino CFD contracts, or commodity future contracts, or pounds sterling, or dollars, or bitcoins, or renminbi.

You've actually come right out and said these things can't even be redeemed for real energy.

So what are they really worth? No one knows until they try to trade them.

Where? On a market.

And there you go. Same old, same old.

And then you accuse us of not understanding what you're on about.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Sep 7th, 2013 at 05:53:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Er - total thread context fail. Never mind.

However - I mostly agree with Thomas. (Which is scary enough in itself)

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Sep 7th, 2013 at 08:38:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ThatBritGuy:

Where? On a market.

And there you go. Same old, same old.

markets are a manifestation of consciousness, not the other way round.

till we change consciousness we will always think cutthroat when we hear the word 'market'.

it's been so long since it was anything else!

when i see the pit-traders armwaving and shrieking into three cellphones at once do i think 'this looks healthy, humans working hard at making a better world'?

i think bedlam. house of horrors. cacophony. babel. pigs in a trough.

sorry pigs!

humans all looking at huge screens and screaming over each other. who in their right mind can think in their wildest of fantasies that this is how humans should live and trade?

and then when the bell rings on wall st and you see those assclowns smug as a bug in a rug all disjointing their arms from patting each other on the back so much.

going to markets used to be fun, people met many of their needs there, lots to see and learn even if you weren't all about making moolah as prime driver.

what they have become... well the tail has 'bout wagged the brains right out the dog's ears, juvenile dementia as way-of-life.

hard wires crossed and shorting, the robot lumbers on leaving people and countries stomped in its wake, so that these baboons can caper in their hollow, while fat cats preen and strut.

gah, beam me up scotty. if this is the trailer, who wants to see the film?

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Sep 8th, 2013 at 06:10:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There are different manifestations of energy - in particular, electromagnetic energy, work or heat - and as many different forms and sub-forms (eg gasoline, natural gas, fuel oil) of energy currency.

Each of these will vary in price by reference to a standard unit of energy, both relative to each other, and also with the relative locations of currency issuer and user and value judgement of the user.

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

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Thu Sep 12th, 2013 at 01:53:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ChrisCook:
If not, then I'm wasting my time engaging with you at all.

no chris, you are not wasting your time...

what's the underlying fear here?

that the tying of currencies to gold and it's inability to mesh with modern economies has anything to teach us about tying currency to energy units?

you can't magic up gold mines, its rarity gives it value, when the vein runs out or becomes uneconomical it's game over.

with energy we can keep opening the vein deeper and wider so we will never run out, so that brings us to the initial core question... if gold were as common as sand it would not be useful as a currency value indicator, so is this the fear with energy?

mig speaks of cornering markets, how could you do that with energy units unless you monopolised the means of producing it? (like central banks have with money and finance (the idea of money))

they'd love to do that of course, that's what rentier do after all, it's their raison d'etre, and governments pretend to be for the 99% but are patently not, as so graphically shown by the numbers mig quoted for 10's of millions of euros fine for having the temerity to remove one's solar panels from the grid in spain.

the number was so obscenely OTT it really showed the true majesty of megalomania these loons are prey to.

that fine is their petticoat showing...

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Sep 8th, 2013 at 05:52:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
melo:
with energy we can keep opening the vein deeper and wider so we will never run out

But locally we can get an energy crisis.

Say that you have a nice mix of wind, solar and hydro. Now climate change moves wind from your wind mills, clouds to your solar and sun to the areas that lead water to your hydro dams. Yes, this can be solved by building new wind, solar and hydro if the geography allows it. But if your currency is denoted in energy, in the meantime the economy will be suffering from deflation (in addition to the energy crisis). That is if you don't get a crisis in confidence - there is not enough energy to back the money!

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Mon Sep 9th, 2013 at 04:21:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A swedish kind of death:
Say that you have a nice mix of wind, solar and hydro. Now climate change moves wind from your wind mills, clouds to your solar and sun to the areas that lead water to your hydro dams.

i know this is not your argument, it's way too silly, you are playing devil's avocado.

if we can reverse climate change we still have deserts, if we can't we'll have more.

heck even moving huge gobs of panels is a minute logistical problem compared to say ring-fencing the aqua fallout from fukedupshima, or building out new coal plants.

what mystifies me is that china has less entrenched extraction industry lobbies, yet still has its head up its ass for the most part.

there have been more quacks about renewables lately from them, but opening coal plants and digging it up have to be way more costly than solarising the Gobi and gridding, and that's just economically, before you take into account the effects on climate and our emotional well-being (literally priceless), and absolutely not factored in.

the downline health savings alone would be prodigious...

damn weak tea as arguments go, imo.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon Sep 9th, 2013 at 07:17:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Can't make a guacamole without squashing some avocado.

But I am partially serious, it would be a bad idea because while you are moving and building new energy infrastructure you would needlessly suffer deflation. And renewables are more resiliant then fossile fuel or nuclear which would be part of any mix if we switched today.

I am also playing avocado, because I don't think there is any risk of energy based currency replacing government violence backed currency. States have no reason to do that, and contrary to Chris I don't think states will fade away. Institutions last and the states has many ways to keep themselves relevant.

So the realistic scenario is energy tokens in addition to government money, in which case an energy crisis may cause a crisis of confidence in the energy tokens, but not deflation as government money remains dominant. It looks interesting as a way to make financing of new energy production easier, as long as it is not turned into yet another financial scam. Right now any and all alternative currencies (that are not horribly poorly constructed) is of interest as states while having the means to marshall the productive resources of society are instead insisting on them being idle, and if human punished for it.

So I guess I am with ARGeezer on this one, it is a partial solution. Which is not to bad.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Mon Sep 9th, 2013 at 02:33:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series