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.
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
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
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
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 gmoke - Nov 8
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 2 13 comments
by Oui - Oct 26 34 comments
by gmoke - Oct 26
by Oui - Nov 103 comments
by Oui - Nov 912 comments
by Oui - Nov 79 comments
by Oui - Nov 614 comments
by Oui - Nov 47 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 213 comments
by Oui - Oct 3130 comments
by Oui - Oct 2634 comments
by Oui - Oct 267 comments
by Oui - Oct 2547 comments
by Oui - Oct 254 comments
by Oui - Oct 2423 comments
by Oui - Oct 246 comments
by Oui - Oct 20
by Oui - Oct 1915 comments
by Oui - Oct 193 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 1811 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 18