Re:Global Currency System

["MV" <maxv@vsnl.com>]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------

> From: Abhijeet Pradhan
>
> I agree with you that the energy used to produce should be reflected in a
> product.  And its good know that you know some physics... but the fact
> remains that the energy used is already reflected in the product.  That is
> why gold costs more than water.
>
> Your problem is that what you are proposing is recursive.  You want to
> define money in terms of energy.  Unfortunately it takes energy to produce
> energy.

Planet earth has only one external source of energy *The SUN*
(there are lot of other stars, but we get  pretty little energy
from them) we get all that energy for free, but to store it
yes it requires some work, till some time back there was only
natural processes to use this energy - hunting, gathering,
cattle keeping, agriculture.....

Then came the fossil fuels, pre stored solar energy....
we all thought it is absolutely free, but we are slowly
understanding there is a global cost to using it.....
The problem is how do we reflect this cost in our
global trade / currency system......

Abhijeet let us try calibrating the currency with reference
to solar energy stored using lest polluting technology
we will get it right......


MV.

Note
------
Nuclear fuel technology is promising but we have to
find a way to use it without producing highly toxic
waste!

> Suppose you  define one dollar as equivalent to the energy produced
> when one litre of 100% acetone is burnt in 100% pure O2 at 50C and 50%
> humidity at one atmosphere (standard enough for you?).  Suppose that is x
> joules.
>
> So I will assume (and maybe i am wrong in assuming this) that you want
that
> 1 dollar to accurately reflect the cost of producing that much acetone
> right? And my assumption is fairly rational because if acetone is cheaper
> then people could manufacture acetone for less than a dollar and still get
> paid a dollar for it.  Then the whole world would start making acetone and
> no one would work.
>
> Or if acetone was costlier then you would be giving people the guarantee
> that the currency will buy x joules by burning 1 litre of acetone when in
> reality acetone costs more than a dollar a litre.  And no one would supply
> the acetone.
>
> So my assumption is ok.
>
> Then what if someone invents a really cheap way to manufacture acetone,
> later on? Will he not be literally printing money?  Or if someone invents
a
> way to deliver x joules (for which he will be paid 1 dollar) but that is
> really polluting.  Will you still pay him a dollar?  Are you paying 1$ for
> delivery of 1 litre of acetone or for x joules?  Answer these questions...
> Propose a standard and defend it instead of simply repeating over and over
> again that energy should be used as a reference for currency and that
doing
> so will magically liberate the oppressed and hungry masses of the world.
>
> Later
> Abhijeet Pradhan
>
> --- MV <maxv@vsnl.com> wrote:
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > From: prakash chandrashekar
> > >
> > > I didn't understand. How does the mass-energy relationship enter into
> > this
> > debate ? What is the connection of energy in mass, with value of
> > products as
> > created by humans.
> > >
> > > A kg of mineral water costs Rs 10.
> > > A kg of gold costs Rs 4,00,000.
> > >
> > > They are relativistically equal in energy. So,what are you trying to
> > say ?
> > >
> >
> > The value of a product is depended on how much energy
> > is mobilized/expended to produce it, in the eg. you have
> > mentioned it is obvious that water is avilable in
> > plenty to purify it and package it does not take too much
> > energy/manpower, infact most of the energy mobilization
> > comes at the distribution/transportation as well as the
> > advertising cost to sell the water, hence the price is low.
> >
> > In the case of gold to produce 1 kg of gold, it takes lot of
> > energy both machine and manpower, hence the gold costs more.
> > When you think about it, whole demand supply theory is based
> > on this energy/effort required to aquire/create the product
> > concept that is why diamond is more costlier than gold it
> > takes even more effort/energy to mine/find diamonds.
> >
> > At the time of gold based currencies there was at least an
> > arbitrary reference value, but now even that is not there.
> > This creates lot of anomaly/distortions in valuations in
> > International trade because the currencies are not based
> > on any reference value.
> >
> > The energy is the best reference value because since the
> > time of barter system, the valuations of all products and
> > services are done on a subconscious level relative to the
> > energy mobilisation or how much work is required to make
> > the product or provide the service. You can think on a
> > concious level about the valuation process and every time
> > you will come to energy mobilization as the root.
> >
> > Money is nothing but representation of potential to mobilise
> > *energy* then why don't we quantify/define it and use that
> > as the base for currencies?
> >
> > MV.
> >
> > >
> > > ------------- Original Message --------------
> > > "MV" <maxv@vsnl.com> wrote:
> > > In the above equation *any* process that is taken as
> > > standard will follow the equation
> > >
> > >   E = m (c x c)
> > >
> > > try disproving that........
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >




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