[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: free trade: a debate



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: prakash chandrashekar
> The concept of energy as currency is not new. I have heard it
mentioned
> in a lot of places, especially those dealing with the future -i.e
> utopian writings.
> Yes, Energy is a good, solid currency unit.
> ------------- Original Message --------------
> "MV"  wrote:
> Still RBI governor does not have a way of calculating
> how much rice to give if someone asks for "Sum of hundred
> rupees worth of rice". Isn't it? Because current economic
> system does not define value of currency in absolute terms!
> Even earlier peg system of currency to gold was only
> arbitrary that is why it failed.
> -----------------
> Earlier, Money was gold. Paper monaey was only a claim on gold.
> ----------------
> Let us see how we can absolutely and universally define
> the value of money/currency...
>
> X money/currency = value of Y calories of clean energy
> ----------------
> Here there will be debates on the meaning of "clean" here. No human
> wealth creation process is truly clean. And every human need, even the

> need for a clean environment is subjective. We make trade-offs all the

> time.
>

Clean is a relative term, but can be easily defined.
for eg. How do we define Kilogram or Meter? Same
way clean energy can also be defined as energy
created using certain standard process.

Now think about how we can do fair transactions
if there is no definition for Kilogram or Meter?

The present International economy is like when
Kilogram (unit of weight) and Meter (unit of length)
are supposed to be defined by govt of each country but
no one knows the exact values (meter is defined in terms
of yard and yard in terms of some other measure, does
it make sense?) and everyone keeps trying to short
change everyone else and in the process some *unstable*
equilibrium is reached, means the value of kilogram
and meter keeps changing every day.... Is this utopian?
or defining the kilogram and meter utopian?

By the way, why do we need so many currencies, in
the age of Globalisation? What is the meaning of
globalisation if there is no global currency?

Defining a global currency with clean energy as
the base is what WTO should be doing isn't it?


> --------------
> Wealth/Money is potential to mobilise clean energy.
> This was quite apparent in the beginning of trade,
> in barter system a person exchanging one bull for
> Y sacks of grain did not have much difficulty in
> calculating the exchange rate, since both the traders
> were aware of the potential of energy mobilisation of
> the bull and the grain.
>
> --------------
>
> Please explain a bit. I think the bull and grain satisfied needs of
> humans, so they were valued and traded. There is no energy
mobilisation
> in gold, cowries shells, parchment, paper, clay pieces - all of which
> were used as money at some time in history.
>

Gold, clay pieces, shells, paper is/was representation
of the energy mobilisation. The meaning got lost over
a period of time.....

>
> -------------
> People keep saying money doesn't grow on trees,
> but think a little and *money does grow on trees
> or rather plants*.
> -------------
>
> please don't confuse wealth and money. Wealth is all the tangble
> products/services that satisfy human needs. Money is a commonly
accepted
> unit of value.
>

Does the wealth have any meaning if it cannot be
converted to money or if it cannot be used for
mobilising energy?

Does owning a painting by Hussain or Picasso mean
anything unless the owner thinks it can be exchanged
for money and the money can be exchanged for food the
very basic human need?

> -------------
> Now RBI governor can easily calculate the how much
> rice to give, if Rupee is defined as promise to give
> goods that can mobilise Y calories of energy without
> introducing imbalnace to our fragile environment.
>
> ---------------
>
> there again , there will be debates on "imbalance" - who will decide
the
> imbalance - bureaucrats or market. whose studies will they take into
> consideration ?
>
>

Once we define the value of the universal currency, the
imbalance will become easy to calculate, the problem is
today there is no way of calculating this. It is as
simple as, after we define meter we know the difference
between, 1 meter and 1.2 meter isn't it? but until
we define meter it is very complex to convey the
difference between 1 and 1.2 meter....isn't it?

>
>
> --------------
> If all currencies are absolutely defined in terms
> of potential to mobilise finite quantity of energy,
> without introducing imbalance to earth's ecosystem,
> it will give a solid base to the economic system.
>
> Only few human activities actually creates wealth,
> primary among them is organic farming, because it
> produces food the primary source of energy for
> human body.
> ---------------
> every voluntary human activity in a free market where property rights
> are properly defined and the value of the earth is shared will
increase
> "human happiness", though not wealth. when i watch a show of jagjit
> singh, I'm happier, though not wealthier.
>

You watching a show by Jagjit Singh will make you happy,
and make Jagjit wealthier, energy mobilisation is taking
place isn't it? Unless you pay will Jagit perform for you?
or Unless the company who is sponsoring jagjit show, plugs
the ads, which will make you or someone else buy their
products and pay for the jagjit performance....

*No economic activity* takes place without energy
mobilisation!

>
> ---------------
>
> Now let's see the how the whole economic system
> got distorted. Things were going smoothly till some
> people started digging up money or rather they stumbled
> on to fossil fuels, large amount of stored energy
> which can be harvested easily. This introduced the
> distortion/imbalances into economic system and our
> fragile ecosystem/environment and also the economic
> system.
> -----------------
>
> which distortion, can you explain ? precisely which imbalance in the
> monetary system occured with discovery of coal or oil ?
>

Think about the economy before coal or oil was found
and think about the economy after coal or oil is
exhausted, you can understand it, isn't it?

>------------------
>
> This concept of Money does address the interests
> of socially marginalized poor people and their role
> in this market world, because now it is possible to
> actually quantify their contribution to creating
> *sustainable wealth* or rather now it is possible to
> quantify wealth in real terms and detect the *over
> valuations* introduced by demand supply aspect, taking
> into consideration the the cost to our fragile
> environment, and apply corrections.
>
> ------------------
>
> HOW ?
>

The current International economy does not consider
the energy that goes in to produce one kg of rice using
the organic farming  and one kg of rice using fertilisers,
pesticides, fossil fuels etc. This is because the
currency/money itself is not defined.

The present economy is like two factories A and B.
Factory A produces goods and sells them less than the
price of input materials. Factory B produces goods and
prices it on the basis of cost of input + profit but
then there is no one to buy the goods of the second
factory because the other guys are selling it too cheap,
finally this factory B closes down, after a short time
the factory A who was doing brisk business also closes
down because of accumulated losses. Now the people
working for both the factories loses the job, because
of the short sighted foolishness of the people in the
factory A. Isn't it what is happening with the
developed countries who uses too much fossil fuels
without considering it's price and sell the products
cheap? Isn't it why the farmers in India are committing
suicide? ..... think......

When energy becomes base of currency, one kg of
rice produced using fertilisers, pesticides, fossil
fuels etc will cost more than one kg of rice produced
using organic farming isn't it?  It will automatically
apply the *correction* in favour of eco-friendly ways
of production of wealth in all aspects of economy not
just the production of rice, isn't it good for all
the people who live on this planet?

The future is clear, if the factory A and factory B
goes on the current economy model people in both
the factories will lose the job, already the people
in factory B (developing countries) are losing job,
the people in the factory A may be thinking it is
their advantage but soon they will also lose their job.
History will repeat itself, rise and fall of
civilisations will continue....

MV.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------