New currency?

[Diogenes]

I am interested in hearing the opinions of those people who normally disagree with me because I know that they will have no hesitation to point out a flaw in an idea which I might support. There are smart people here, even among those who disagree with me about various things.


I hate fiat currency. I have never understood the arguments against it, and I am all too aware of the abuses we suffer as a result of it. That being said, what can we replace it with? Gold and Silver (specie) has historically been what money was based on, but people are all too willing to point out the flaws in a Gold or Silver based system.


I had an idea today. It is not a new idea, but I never paid it much attention before. I have a new found respect for it. It is the idea of creating a monetary system based on energy, i.e. Calories, KiloCalories, BTUS, Ergs, Watt-Seconds, KWH or whatever.






The point is, a government can't F*** with it. They can't debase it because it can be defined by scientific means and consensus. Energy credits can be the unit of exchange that can replace existing currency.


Does anyone have any idea of what the downside might be?

[KitemanSA]

As a side issue, your graphic is bogus. Since wind, hydro, and bio all rely on solar, which is nuclear, and geothermal is also nuclear, then surely "nuclear" should be considered "renewable" too!

[KitemanSA]

I suppose it COULD, but the last thing I would want is to have the medium for value storage be subject to the inventiveness of people. It's like making diamonds your medium. Along comes Gemtech and your life savings is basically worthless. No thanks. My vote is no for the implied question.

[Stubby]

Woohoo I am rich. I have a huge pile of rechargeable batteries.

[hanelyp]

A currency backed by something concrete would tend to resist abuse much better than fiat currency. That something being a commodity that tends to scale with the economy as a whole, like available energy, has advantages over precious metals.

A few details:

1. Not all energy is of equal value in an economy. Electricity is typically of high value, as evidenced by so much energy being distributed in that form at a higher price. Heat is obviously of low value. A Joule for a Joule exchange doesn't generally work if the energy is of different forms. A single form of energy would ideally need to be agreed to as the standard.
2. The price paid for energy of a specific form varies depending on location. But we also have cases where the value of a currency varies with location. Gradients in commodity value encourage means of efficiently transporting the commodity to where it holds more value.
3. How is energy measured for purposes of issuing energy credits? I've seen electric generating capacity proposed as a basis.
4. Will the entity issuing credits in the new currency be more ethical than the entity issuing the old currency? If the answer to point 3 is at all fuzzy, you can expect some abuse. Will authorities create fictional generating capacity in order to inflate currency, gambling that the capacity won't be tested?
   1. One option that comes to mind is an electric utility issuing credits, backed by the commodity they produce, liable if unable to deliver product for credits on a reasonable basis.
5. If multiple nations adopt energy as a backing of currency, that fixes an exchange rate. See also points 1 and 4.

[Diogenes]

As a side issue, your graphic is bogus. Since wind, hydro, and bio all rely on solar, which is nuclear, and geothermal is also nuclear, then surely "nuclear" should be considered "renewable" too!

I picked it as a sop to the green energy folk, not because it necessarily represented the big picture accurately. The point was to convey that energy in any form is still energy, and therefore an asset which can be bartered.

[Diogenes]

I suppose it COULD, but the last thing I would want is to have the medium for value storage be subject to the inventiveness of people. It's like making diamonds your medium. Along comes Gemtech and your life savings is basically worthless. No thanks. My vote is no for the implied question.

I don't think you argument is very well reasoned. If you compare the value of a known quantity of energy to the value of the trustworthiness of the United States Government, at least you will always be able to get back your input value of energy. With the US Government? Worthless paper.


I had hoped you would have spent more time formulating an objection.

[Diogenes]

A currency backed by something concrete would tend to resist abuse much better than fiat currency. That something being a commodity that tends to scale with the economy as a whole, like available energy, has advantages over precious metals.

A few details:

1. Not all energy is of equal value in an economy. Electricity is typically of high value, as evidenced by so much energy being distributed in that form at a higher price. Heat is obviously of low value. A Joule for a Joule exchange doesn't generally work if the energy is of different forms. A single form of energy would ideally need to be agreed to as the standard.
2. The price paid for energy of a specific form varies depending on location. But we also have cases where the value of a currency varies with location. Gradients in commodity value encourage means of efficiently transporting the commodity to where it holds more value.
3. How is energy measured for purposes of issuing energy credits? I've seen electric generating capacity proposed as a basis.
4. Will the entity issuing credits in the new currency be more ethical than the entity issuing the old currency? If the answer to point 3 is at all fuzzy, you can expect some abuse. Will authorities create fictional generating capacity in order to inflate currency, gambling that the capacity won't be tested?
   1. One option that comes to mind is an electric utility issuing credits, backed by the commodity they produce, liable if unable to deliver product for credits on a reasonable basis.
5. If multiple nations adopt energy as a backing of currency, that fixes an exchange rate. See also points 1 and 4.

Now this is what I mean by well reasoned. Your points are well thought out and valid.



As for abuse, i'm not sure how a government will be able to do this to the extent that they can with fiat currency. Even now, the printing presses are churning out more paper, which is reducing the value of the paper in people's bank accounts.


At least with energy, you will still get back the same quantity and quality as you put into it decades earlier. With dollars? Not so much.


I see a financial collapse coming, and this is being caused to some extent by government's ability to screw around with the currency. The current system makes borrowing and spending far too easy, and so people have wandered down the easy path of paying for extravagances in the present by mortgaging the future.

[paperburn1]

At least with energy, you will still get back the same quantity and quality as you put into it decades earlier. With dollars? Not so much.


I see a financial collapse coming, and this is being caused to some extent by government's ability to screw around with the currency. The current system makes borrowing and spending far too easy, and so people have wandered down the easy path of paying for extravagances in the present by mortgaging the future.

That is assuming there is no increase in efficiency. That would be equivalent to inflation if there was such and increase. Car used 40 units of product to go 40 miles now uses 20 units of product to go the same mileage. Therefore your hard asset value goes down . ?!? A short term saving but a long term inflation. Private individuals going into the energy business devaluing your stored energy. to many variables for me to give a good assessment without a long term thought process.

[Aero]

If we did this, (based currency on energy) we would have to cancel Polywell research and many others since success would devalue the world monetary supply.

Or we could just funnel all energy research funds into tok research, that would be safe.

[choff]

It's already being done, the currency is called carbon credits, the big banks and the seven sisters they control, are pushing it as the green solution(as in final solution). It will be the new global currency, and before you can even get any, you're already paying carbon taxes.

The one thing I learned from watching those videos by fiat advocate Bill Still, it doesn't matter what you use for money, what matters is who controls the quantity. The big oil companies would begin with strategic control of the most essential energy assets in the new economy. The utilities might hold out for a while before being taken over by them. They would charge you extra for alternative sources, because nuclear would be painted as bad.

The big banks through foundations promoted the whole specie currency Hegelian trap for economics students. The frational reserve lending central banks own most of the precious metal, going to a gold standard brings you right back to the exact same people being in charge, playing exactly the same games with the economy.

[KitemanSA]

I suppose it COULD, but the last thing I would want is to have the medium for value storage be subject to the inventiveness of people. It's like making diamonds your medium. Along comes Gemtech and your life savings is basically worthless. No thanks. My vote is no for the implied question.

I had hoped you would have spent more time formulating an objection.

"I am sorry for the long letter, I didn't have time to make it short". You confuse brevity with lack of thought. That is a fool's response.

[Diogenes]

At least with energy, you will still get back the same quantity and quality as you put into it decades earlier. With dollars? Not so much.


I see a financial collapse coming, and this is being caused to some extent by government's ability to screw around with the currency. The current system makes borrowing and spending far too easy, and so people have wandered down the easy path of paying for extravagances in the present by mortgaging the future.

That is assuming there is no increase in efficiency. That would be equivalent to inflation if there was such and increase. Car used 40 units of product to go 40 miles now uses 20 units of product to go the same mileage. Therefore your hard asset value goes down . ?!? A short term saving but a long term inflation. Private individuals going into the energy business devaluing your stored energy.

A $20.00 gold piece is now worth around $1,700.

to many variables for me to give a good assessment without a long term thought process.

That is what I was asking for.

[Diogenes]

If we did this, (based currency on energy) we would have to cancel Polywell research and many others since success would devalue the world monetary supply.

So if a Nation finds a new massive deposit of gold, should they leave it in the ground?

Or we could just funnel all energy research funds into tok research, that would be safe.

Based on past performance, you are probably right.

[Diogenes]

It's already being done, the currency is called carbon credits, the big banks and the seven sisters they control, are pushing it as the green solution(as in final solution). It will be the new global currency, and before you can even get any, you're already paying carbon taxes.

The one thing I learned from watching those videos by fiat advocate Bill Still, it doesn't matter what you use for money, what matters is who controls the quantity. The big oil companies would begin with strategic control of the most essential energy assets in the new economy. The utilities might hold out for a while before being taken over by them. They would charge you extra for alternative sources, because nuclear would be painted as bad.

The big banks through foundations promoted the whole specie currency Hegelian trap for economics students. The frational reserve lending central banks own most of the precious metal, going to a gold standard brings you right back to the exact same people being in charge, playing exactly the same games with the economy.

Do you see energy credits as being better or worse than bitcoin?