[ExI] repercieve the economy [was: Engineering]

Mirco Romanato painlord2k at libero.it
Sat Dec 22 11:20:52 UTC 2012

Il 21/12/2012 19:18, spike ha scritto:
>> ... On Behalf Of Mirco Romanato
> Subject: Re: [ExI] repercieve the economy [was: Engineering] Il
> 21/12/2012 14:20, ablainey at aol.com ha scritto:

>>> ... I fully agree Spike, Energy already is money...
>> ...The problem is how the masses can understand the problem when
>> smart elites have problem grasping the problem?

> The massed do not need to understand the problem.  Only the
> investors.  If they fail, they're broke.  Otherwise, rich.  There are
> mountains of money going unmade here.

>> ...Energy is consumed where gold is recycled...
> Renewable energy is recycled.

I think this is against the First and Second Principle of Thermodynamics.
Anyway, how do you recycle solar power, wind power and likes?
How are you able to put back int he Sun the energy you captured and used?

>> ...A currency based on energy give a lot of power to the people
>> producing energy...
> Precisely so, sir, thanks.  That would be us.

That would be the people with the power plant (nuclear, coal, oil, gas,
whatever). And, be sure, if they adopted this there would be a law (many
laws) against doing it at home. You know, ecology, blah, blah, blah,
pollution, ...

>> ... (they have the money printer)...
> Ja and those of us who have a renewable source, even a very limited
> one, would then have a money printer, even if a small one.

Money is money because it can change hands, usually any hand. How do you
plan to sell your energy to others? In what form? Gasoline from corn is
not the same as diesel from algae or electricity connected to the grid.
They could be money, but they are different money from each other. It is
like having to deal with US$, €, yen and every one can be used only for
a limited subset of purchases.

>> ...and force the other people to depend from them...
> ...with the exception of those who have renewable energy sources.
> This would force people to depend on themselves.

In a complex economy, self sufficient people is self-sufficient on a
degree. If I control the power that power the steel plant, your
self-sufficient farm will anyway need to use my steel to continue to
produce. And I underbid you with my money production, because my coal
plant produce energy (and money) at lower costs than you.

>> ... Obviously we are talking about legal tender with a monopoly
>> imposed by the force of the government, otherwise there would not
>> be reason to argue...
> No argument here, you are right.  If energy is money, that breaks the
> government monopoly on legal tender, and we cannot have that, now can
> we?

The legal tender argument is different from the free market money argument.
The legal tender force people to accept something as payment if they
have not agreed to do differently.
The monopoly argument prevent the people from using anything as money
apart from the monopolized good.

>> ...It would be an improvement over fiat money, but would be vastly
>> less useful than gold, silver or bitcoin.
> Agree with the first part, disagree with the second.  Energy makes
> great currency because it has real, rather than arbitrary, value.
> Energy is life.  Life is valuable.  Therefore energy is valuable.

Today you feel poetic:
Energy is life is false. The Sun is not alive and it have a lot of energy.
Life is valuable is true, but this only say "to every single living
being could be given a value". The value is arbitrary and subjective,
not objective. Because the value of a Spike is different from the value
of a Ted Bundy, a cow or a oak.

>> ...I want something that I can hold in my hand and I have total
>> control over. Something I can move around how I see fit and useful
>> to myself and my goals...

> Exactly!  Me too.

Try to move 100.000 € in gasoline, electricity or gold. What is the
easiest to move around. What can you fit in your pockets? What can you
put in my hand? What can you deliver in a second? What can you storage
cheaply and hide easier?

>> ...Something other people can not create, destroy or take away at
>> will without a large effort and a lot of work and cost...

> Partially agree.  I want something other people can create, but
> cannot take away.

>> ...How much energy I can hold in my hand?
> Signor Mirco, I don't know how sturdy a lad you are, so I can only do
> BOTECs on myself.  I have no problem hoisting my five gallon (20
> liter) gasoline can in one paw, and gasoline is a bit over 30
> kiloWatt-hours per gallon, so I can hold over 150 kWh in my hand.  I
> have a 50 liter tank I use as an external on my motorcycle, so that
> is over 400 kWh.

The same value can be expressed in the free market with 1/10th of a
ounce of gold (around 3 grams).

Now, if I buy a home at current market prices (in Italy) I have to pay
around 150.000 € that are equivalent to 100k liter of gasoline tax
included at the pump (if not they would be around 300k liter).

So, I buy a home and should deliver around ten (or thirty) trucks of
gasoline to the owner (add the cost of moving it around, the tanks to
hold it and the rest of the costs)

I bet he prefer to be paid with 90 ounces of gold he could hide under a

>> ... How much energy can I move from here to there using my car?
> My Detroit has a 33 gallon tank, intentionally oversized for hauling.
> Without external tanks, that is already over a megawatt hour.

So you can go around with the equivalent of what: 100/1.000 US$ and you
need a truck to do so?

>> ... How much this energy will last if I don't use it?
> With fuel stabilizer, over a year easy.

Gold coin were recovered from ancient shipwrecks and were good as coins
just minted. Didn't matter what funny face was printed on it.

>> ...3) What prevent the emitter(s) from reducing the production and
>> raising the value of the single unit of energy...

> ...spot shortages are prevented by massive redundancy in the hands of
> millions of energy-producing proles.

Proles are only rich of their offspring. Today there are no proles.
And anyway your picture resemble Matrix.

>> ... Less he produce more it is valuable.  Mirco

> Agreed, and the more valuable, the more the millions of other proles
> compensate to meet the common need.  For profit of course.

> This is a system which would encourage the development of renewable
> sources by market forces rather than by whimsical and illogical
> government action in the form of tax credits.  It takes government
> and energy speculators out of the loop.  It puts engineering skills
> and individual thinking into the loop.

Let stick with the simple solution: free market money.
People decide what to accept as money. If they take the wrong decision,
they pay the price but are able to change course in the future.

This energy as money scheme require a legal tender law imposed by the
government. And it is bulky as I explained before.

> Consider for a minute all the collective intellectual energy is
> poured into the choice of what car we drive.  Now as an intellectual
> exercise, remove the sheet metal from the outside, and look at just
> the drivetrain and electronics.  If you do that, you see that there
> really isn't nearly as much variation as we would think, given the
> nearly infinite variety we perceive in car choices.  Most of this
> intellectual energy is really wasted, focusing on trivial variations
> in how sheet metal is fashioned, paint choices, a dash of chrome here
> and there.  So most automotive engineering today is really just
> marketing.

What you lost in your analogy is:
1) The metal sheet is needed for aerodynamics and people need something
to protect them from wind, bugs, dust, rain and whatever.
2) I value a lot where I put my ass, because it is MY ass. First because
I like to seat comfortably and second because I like to have my ass in a
safe position.

> What if all that intellectual energy on the part of the consumer
> could instead be focused on something that matters, such as figuring
> out how to use one's financial resources, roof area, sun exposure,
> and so on, to figure out how best to set up ground based solar power?
> And what if a fraction of the intellectual energy we waste on
> football and American Idol is used instead to ponder how best to use
> the energy each prole produces, working towards increasing
> efficiencies and smarter, more productive ways to live our lives.

I don't want focus the others where I like they focus.
I want they stop focusing me where I don't want be focused.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list