A hard currency standard is the key to world peace

[Thumpalumpacus]

Ummm I didn't say that it was a cause of war, I've always said that currency debasement was one of the necessary components. You're getting into Christian-Apologetics levels of wrangling here. I think I'll just ignore you from now on.

Forgive my misuse of the word "cause"; I should have written "prerequisites".  That doesn't change the fact that you have not asnwered my question.

And it's not surprising to me that you are now refusing to do so, and instead resorting to ignoring what is disagreeable.  Typical Internet behavior.

Have a nice day, boyo.

[zarus tathra]

I think this answered like 80% of your objections

The details would obviously need to be worked out, but they would probably charge on the basis of how much distance/resistance/energy from the wall-plug/energy at the point of generation.

You'll probably use the joules produced at the plant as the baseline, and then make deductions for other factors in a transparent manner.

And yeah, a joule in "currency form" is more stable, but unlike with gold, you actually HAVE to buy joules in order to do anything. At the end of every supply chain, joules get used and consumed by a manufacturer, to say nothing of the utilities you make use of every day. This process will continue until the last man dies and the last machine goes dark.

Again, nonsense. The various electrical generation technologies have cost of running that differ by both resource availability and remoteness of the customers. The costs of goods will be wildly different from region to region, depending on the quality of the electrical generation systems and grid — ie, depending on how much overhead there is in converting local joules to joule dollars.

And if they can't create the energy, they either avoid printing the bills or they fail to deliver and everyone knows.

Which made it possible to buy all the cannon that was being made at the time.

Just how often do you think that happens? 99% of the time they have to debase. We can both only really think of one example, that of Germany.

You "feel"? You're still being quite vague here. What is the mechanism that prevents war here? What happens with a hard currency to stop the country's war machine dead in its tracks?

There won't be a mechanism that prevents war, there'll be an absence of the mechanism that allows for it, that is, infinite expansion of the supply of money.

I'm getting the feeling that you're trying not to understand me. That's depressingly common on this forum, it seems.

[Hakurei Reimu]

I think this answered like 80% of your objections

The details would obviously need to be worked out, but they would probably charge on the basis of how much distance/resistance/energy from the wall-plug/energy at the point of generation.

You'll probably use the joules produced at the plant as the baseline, and then make deductions for other factors in a transparent manner.

So if I turn in a single joule dollar to be redeemed, I'm not going to see the full joule on my end?

And yeah, a joule in "currency form" is more stable, but unlike with gold, you actually HAVE to buy joules in order to do anything. At the end of every supply chain, joules get used and consumed by a manufacturer, to say nothing of the utilities you make use of every day.

You would have to buy joules with money, but not necessarily with currency. Indeed, with a joule standard, it would be extremely wasteful to redeem the currency directly into electrical energy — for one thing, you would have to destroy the bills because they are no longer worth anything, and reprint them when the base can again cover them, and get your electricity through a central authority rather than getting it with less loss (and therefore less money) from somewhere more local.

Again, nonsense. The various electrical generation technologies have cost of running that differ by both resource availability and remoteness of the customers. The costs of goods will be wildly different from region to region, depending on the quality of the electrical generation systems and grid — ie, depending on how much overhead there is in converting local joules to joule dollars.

And if they can't create the energy, they either avoid printing the bills or they fail to deliver and everyone knows.

The point, tweedle-dum, is that an ounce of coal would not be worth X joule dollars everywhere, so some regions will be highly advantagous to generate the joule dollars compared to others.

Just how often do you think that happens? 99% of the time they have to debase. We can both only really think of one example, that of Germany.

But there are many forms of electrical technology coming down the pipe, from primary generation to efficiency savings, and thus, the means and license to literally print money (ie, currency).

You "feel"? You're still being quite vague here. What is the mechanism that prevents war here? What happens with a hard currency to stop the country's war machine dead in its tracks?

There won't be a mechanism that prevents war, there'll be an absence of the mechanism that allows for it.

Whatever. The point is that you have yet to explain how hard currency is supposed to impose an absence of "the" mechanism that allows for war. Ie, is debasement of currency the only way to finance a war? There aren't others that might allow a war to be fianced and fought? Are you sure that a hard currency will make it impossible in 99% of cases, instead of simply making war a little more difficult?

If all wars were historically financed completely through a debased currency, you might have a point. But they're not. Debt was and is also used to finance war, like our last one. The second Iraqi war was financed completely by the government going even deeper into hock. The money thus created, and thus paid for the war, existed completely as a number. Some of it did end up as bills, eventually, but the currency in circulation has remained more or less in step with the GDP for the last 30 years.

You focus on currency, and pretending that its the only money that would actually be used to finance a war. Sorry, but money is created through various means, and most of them have jack all to do with the government — it is these kinds of money that is referred to in legal documents as "monies." The US government is the only one authorized to print US currency, but the creation of money —in dollars— occurs in every bank in the world.

In days of yore when currency was the only convenient way to transfer money, then debasement was a fine and dandy way to create some easy money. But things have changed, if you'll forgive the pun. Now, most vendors won't even accept currency as a method of payment for the kind of large purchases that a modern war would demand — they would demand a bank wire the money directly to them, bypassing completely the currency that is the only thing that your hard currency standard would even touch. You do not explain how hard currency would make those kinds of transfers impossible, or how it would target war purchases specifically and not other expensive works, like bridges and space shuttles.

You have also yet to address what other consequences a hard currency standard would have on a world economy. Even if it prevented war, it would not be worth it if it sent the world into a declining economic spiral.

So how 'bout it? Wanna try this again?

I'm getting the feeling that you're trying not to understand me. That's depressingly common on this forum, it seems.

Or it could be that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. That's depressingly common on this forum, too.

[zarus tathra]

So if I turn in a single joule dollar to be redeemed, I'm not going to see the full joule on my end?

There could be a "floor" on how much you get. If you redeem it at night, for example, you'll probably get more, since a lot of energy is generated off-peak. The details have to be worked out, but the people would probably riot if the energy redeemed fell below a certain point. Or at least I hope they would... the system wouldn't work if discipline weren't enforced. At the very least, people could buy devices with which to measure how many joules were coming into their house, as an example, while the same level of measurability just isn't possible with paper bills. If you were getting screwed, you'd at least know. A joule standard wouldn't make fraud impossible, it'd just make it very difficult to get away with.

The point, tweedle-dum, is that an ounce of coal would not be worth X joule dollars everywhere, so some regions will be highly advantagous to generate the joule dollars compared to others.

Okay? So those regions will print more joule dollars to reflect the greater availability. These dollars are valued in terms of electricity and not in terms of windmills/coal/uranium/etc.

If all wars were historically financed completely through a debased currency, you might have a point. But they're not. Debt was and is also used to finance war, like our last one. The second Iraqi war was financed completely by the government going even deeper into hock. The money thus created, and thus paid for the war, existed completely as a number. Some of it did end up as bills, eventually, but the currency in circulation has remained more or less in step with the GDP for the last 30 years.

That level of debt would be impossible if the Fed couldn't simply print up more money. A huge part of the reason why our debt/GDP ratio didn't rise to this level before the introduction of the Federal Reserve is because we didn't have a fiat currency before. Without the printing press, the feds couldn't go 11 trillion dollars in debt and still have an awesome credit rating.

You have also yet to address what other consequences a hard currency standard would have on a world economy. Even if it prevented war, it would not be worth it if it sent the world into a declining economic spiral.

The countries that engaged in protracted war would go into economic spirals, as they should. Under the current system, the economic burdens are simply exported to poor countries; under a more rational monetary order, it would be much more difficult to shift burdens surreptitiously. With a gold standard, a country that imports too much would soon lose the ability to do so, and a country that exports too much would see the rapid inflation of prices of domestic goods and would then start to import. Under a fiat currency system, though, the value of currency is anybody's guess and through the magic of money people can become permanent exporters and importers, with permanent slave and master nations. Under a joule standard, prices would track time inputs and resource availability a lot more closely.

Or it could be that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. That's depressingly common on this forum, too.

I've cited like 9-10 examples of debasement and war happening at the same time. The only example we've found so far of debasement NOT happening was in the case of Germany, which had enough silver mines to back a continental silver standard, which was an anomaly that ended up fizzling out in the 20th century.

[Hakurei Reimu]

So if I turn in a single joule dollar to be redeemed, I'm not going to see the full joule on my end?

There could be a "floor" on how much you get. If you redeem it at night, for example, you'll probably get more, since a lot of energy is generated off-peak. The details have to be worked out, but the people would probably riot if the energy redeemed fell below a certain point.

Then the "joule standard" isn't based, period. If you have a based currency, it means that you get exactly the amount of the resource the currency is based on whenever it is redeemed. No more, no less.

Or at least I hope they would... the system wouldn't work if discipline weren't enforced. At the very least, people could buy devices with which to measure how many joules were coming into their house, as an example, while the same level of measurability just isn't possible with paper bills. If you were getting screwed, you'd at least know. A joule standard wouldn't make fraud impossible, it'd just make it very difficult to get away with.

You don't really get what a "based currency" is, do you? A based currency means that you use a proxy item (the "currency") in place of a resource upon which that item may be exchanged for upon request (the "base"). The reason why you use a based currency is because using the base directly is inconvenient in comparison to using the proxy. If you use the joule standard as the base of a currency, any currency, you do not have the joules themselves. You have the currency, bills, coins, ect, as a proxy for the joules on which the currency is based.

No, the electricity itself cannot be used as a medium of exchange, because it lacks several important properties that a medium of exchange needs. Electricity doesn't have a low cost of preservation. You must be able to hang onto your currency and use it, and it will not deteriorate in value. Electricity does not have this property. Electricity doesn't have constant utility. A spikey mains current is of much less utility than a clean mains current, even if they deliver the same amount of joules. Electricity lacks transportability. You need extensive infrastructure to transport it, unlike dollar bills. Electricity lacks divisibility. That is, it lacks a way to easily divide it into smaller units for less valuable purchases. It's easy to break a dollar. It's less easy to break a coulomb. The fact that you have to use instruments to measure those joules coming in hurts their recognizability, accounting, and assurances of quality (which means its easier to slip bad electricity past you). It's also cheap to produce, but expensive to store, hurting its specific and volumetric value. Of the eight important properties that a medium of exchange must have, electricity only easily attains one of them: it values common assets.

So yeah, you need a proxy for the electricity. That means notes representing the joules of electricity that they may be redeemed for. Or something. Otherwise, its not a medium of exchange, and cannot be currency. Thus, some amount of trust is unavoidable.

The first gold coinage had the advantage that the currency was itself the base, because gold is stable and high value despite its denseness. The only use of the seal of the king was to assure its purity, but otherwise was literally worth its weight in gold. The properties of gold make it a very convenient medium of exchange, and hence currency. Electricity has almost none of the advantages of gold.

Okay? So those regions will print more joule dollars to reflect the greater availability. These dollars are valued in terms of electricity and not in terms of windmills/coal/uranium/etc.

So, in the end, you don't know how much an ounce of coal costs, do you?

That level of debt would be impossible if the Fed couldn't simply print up more money.

The government has only printed money to keep the liquidity of the US economy at an acceptable level. The money liberated by the US taking on additional debt was transfered via wire and never touched a single coin in currency before it was spent. (Only after it had diffused into the economy had some of it become currency.)

A huge part of the reason why our debt/GDP ratio didn't rise to this level before the introduction of the Federal Reserve is because we didn't have a fiat currency before. Without the printing press, the feds couldn't go 11 trillion dollars in debt and still have an awesome credit rating.

We have an awesome credit rating because everyone trusts our money and we have never defaulted on our debt. Other countries that have tried to print their way out of sizeable debt run into a problem called hyperinflation.

You do realize we have more assets than cash, right?

You have also yet to address what other consequences a hard currency standard would have on a world economy. Even if it prevented war, it would not be worth it if it sent the world into a declining economic spiral.

The countries that engaged in protracted war would go into economic spirals, as they should.

You have to prove that if they don't go to war under the hard currency standard, then they won't go into economic spirals, doofus. If they go into economic spirals regardless of whether they go to war or not, then hard currency isn't worth its keep.

Under the current system, the economic burdens are simply exported to poor countries; under a more rational monetary order, it would be much more difficult to shift burdens surreptitiously. With a gold standard, a country that imports too much would soon lose the ability to do so, and a country that exports too much would see the rapid inflation of prices of domestic goods and would then start to import. Under a fiat currency system, though, the value of currency is anybody's guess and through the magic of money people can become permanent exporters and importers, with permanent slave and master nations.

Very little international trade is conducted with actual currency. It might have been true in the past, but it isn't anymore. Most of the problems of the poor countries come from the fact that they are exporting unprocessed raw resources and importing much more valuable processed goods. Even with a hard currency, money will continue flow out of those countries because they are literally exporting their mineral wealth, instead of turning it into actual wealth that will make them richer.

Under a joule standard, prices would track time inputs and resource availability a lot more closely.

The joule standard is not a hard standard, because the amount of joules you get back for redeeming your currency is anyone's guess.

Or it could be that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. That's depressingly common on this forum, too.

I've cited like 9-10 examples of debasement and war happening at the same time.

That's a different thing than proving that such debasement is required. Also, I didn't ask for examples. I asked how it all fucking works. I don't want examples; I want a line of argument that leads from "hard currency standard" to "there can be no war."

Get it?

The only example we've found so far of debasement NOT happening was in the case of Germany, with Iraq which had enough silver mines to back a continental silver standard, which was an anomaly that ended up fizzling out in the 20th century.

Irrelevant. All you've shown is that its commonly done, not that it's necessary.

[zarus tathra]

We have an awesome credit rating because everyone trusts our money and we have never defaulted on our debt. Other countries that have tried to print their way out of sizeable debt run into a problem called hyperinflation.

Google the "Nixon Shock." Our currency isn't "solid" because it's awesome, it's solid because there really isn't an alternative to our paper money.

And the "floor," i.e. the "minimum" amount redeemable would deal with the problems of the "joule standard being anyone's guess." And if they raise the amount redeemable only at night and kept the amount at or near the predictable minimum at other times, then we'd probably be fine.

Where did I say that people couldn't trade their energy dollars? And where did I say that they couldn't record the amount they had in a bank database and "transfer" them like under the current system?

I had alternative "energy money" schemes in mind.

1 You could trade "power," as in you would have semi-durable claims on a given amount of wattage at any given time. These would be semi-durable in the sense that they would degrade over time, like they'd have a half-life.

2. You could trade "shares of the power output." The more shares that are in use, the less each share would get, since more people are drawing. These shares maybe would degrade over time, too. Or they'd be kept constant, but people would willingly vote for funding for more research/exploration to increase the amount of grid power they have access to.

As for "liquidity crises," the "energy share" system would allow people with very few shares to purchase a lot with their very few shares when business is slow. The "half-life power" system would ensure that money is always leaving the system, necessitating the constant reentry of new money into the system. Under the "joule" system, you would also have money constantly leave the system and reenter it by power company design. So there'd be a necessary cycling of the nation's wealth that is certainly not necessitated by a gold/paper standard.

This is something you don't seem to understand. Very few joule bucks will ever remain joule bucks for very long. Everything will make its way to the power company eventually, because unless you have your own nuclear power plant and robot army and autonomous industrial combine and a continent's worth of natural resources to yourself, everything you buy is produced using grid energy. Everything. So this is the "tax" that has a constant deflationary effect on everything.

[Hakurei Reimu]

We have an awesome credit rating because everyone trusts our money and we have never defaulted on our debt. Other countries that have tried to print their way out of sizeable debt run into a problem called hyperinflation.

Google the "Nixon Shock." Our currency isn't "solid" because it's awesome, it's solid because there really isn't an alternative to our paper money.

I was talking about our credit rating, you boob, and regardless of why our currency is trusted, it is. Deal with it.

And the "floor," i.e. the "minimum" amount redeemable would deal with the problems of the "joule standard being anyone's guess." And if they raise the amount redeemable only at night and kept the amount at or near the predictable minimum at other times, then we'd probably be fine.

Again, not understanding what a "based currency" is. If I redeem one joule's worth of currency based on a joule standard, I am to get exactly one joule. Not less, and not even more. If the energy ticket says that it is worth one joule, then I get at least one joule when I redeem it, otherwise the government has not kept its promise and the trust in the currency is suspect. Conversely, if the energy ticket says that it is worth one joule, then I get at most one joule when I redeem it, otherwise, I can —in principle— turn right around and sell it back to the Treasury for free currency, more than I pay for it — because if I pay the Treasury more than one joule, then I get more than one joule's worth of currency (or the Treasury again has not upheld its promise).

It's the fact that the currency fluctuates in the number of joules it may be exchanged with is the problem, not any floor or ceiling and not getting a minimum amount, because that fluctuating value can be exploited by speculators and swindlers, and will encourage rapid (and I mean on the order of miliseconds) redemption and reissuement of the currency, rather than letting it stay around for a little while to be used as a medium of exchange. The economy would quickly degernate into sucking the Treasury dry of all its energy/currency.

Where did I say that people couldn't trade their energy dollars? And where did I say that they couldn't record the amount they had in a bank database and "transfer" them like under the current system?

Then you're back to the problems of not having enough actual energy production to cover a run on the joule dollar, which I addressed in a previous post.

At least you recognize that electricity is unsuitable as a medium of exchange.

You do realize that, right?

I had alternative "energy money" schemes in mind.

1 You could trade "power," as in you would have semi-durable claims on a given amount of wattage at any given time. These would be semi-durable in the sense that they would degrade over time, like they'd have a half-life.

That defeats the "store of value" property that based currencies depend on. You must take in energy (and pay for it) to keep the power going. Energy is conserved, but power is not.

2. You could trade "shares of the power output." The more shares that are in use, the less each share would get, since more people are drawing. These shares maybe would degrade over time, too. Or they'd be kept constant, but people would willingly vote for funding for more research/exploration to increase the amount of grid power they have access to.

This has the same problem as your first alternative. The basing you are using is not a good store of value.

As for "liquidity crises," the "energy share" system would allow people with very few shares to purchase a lot with their very few shares when business is slow. The "half-life power" system would ensure that money is always leaving the system, necessitating the constant reentry of new money into the system. Under the "joule" system, you would also have money constantly leave the system and reenter it by power company design. So there'd be a necessary cycling of the nation's wealth that is certainly not necessitated by a gold/paper standard.

The only thing you are cycling is currency, which is only one kind of money, and money is only one kind of wealth. And again, where is the store of value that a based currency depends on?

This is something you don't seem to understand. Very few joule bucks will ever remain joule bucks for very long. Everything will make its way to the power company eventually, because unless you have your own nuclear power plant and robot army and autonomous industrial combine and a continent's worth of natural resources to yourself, everything you buy is produced using grid energy. Everything. So this is the "tax" that has a constant deflationary effect on everything.

Oh, I understand it. I even pointed this effect out in an earlier post. What you don't understand is that what you cite as the joule dollar's "strength" is actually a fatal weakness. This "deflationary effect" is a consequence of the fact that electricity is a terrible store of value. One of the three big functions of currency is to serve as a store of value. Furthermore, the difference is not a "tax", it's just gone, lost to heat and entropy.

You harp on this fact that electrical energy always has value, because really that's the only thing going for the joule standard. But "always having value" does not a good currency make. For every other desiderata for currency, electricity sucks — it's a terrible medium of exchange, and it's a terrible store of value. Sure, you might be able to debase a gold currency standard, but the properties of gold ensures that, as a currency, it blows electricity right out of the water.

Food, water, and shelter will also always have value, but they have never been used as currency, for good reasons. They're fine commodities, like electricity, but they are in no ways good currency.

And don't think I haven't noticed that you have once again not explained how a hard currency is supposed to stop wars.

[mykcob4]

The Op doesn't understand what starts war in the first place. He/she is under the assumption that nations start wars and only nations start wars. The reality and increasingly so is that factions start wars. They may call it religious or ideological but it all boils down to a faction not getting what it needs. Even pre WWII Germany was a fcation more than it was a nation. Yes it turned to ultra nationalism to effect war but it was the very fact that a whole people had been disenfranchised from the world which made them susepitable to the leadership of a crazed warmonger, that became drunk with power and self delussion.
Who joins terrorist groups? People that are lost or have been wronged in some manner. I am not talking about the leadership of terrorist. I am talking about the body, the populace of terrorist groups. For the same reason kids join gangs. War will and is a reaction to a social injustice or a need. The militariztion of pre WWII Japan was the fact that it hadn't access to natural resources.
The value of money no matter the standard will never ever stop any war, not in the least.

[zarus tathra]

I was talking about our credit rating, you boob, and regardless of why our currency is trusted, it is. Deal with it.

Our credit rating is declining and will continue to decline if present trends don't reverse themselves. If China wasn't so generous about debasing its currency to protect our economy, we'd literally have nothing.

It's the fact that the currency fluctuates in the number of joules it may be exchanged with is the problem, not any floor or ceiling and not getting a minimum amount, because that fluctuating value can be exploited by speculators and swindlers, and will encourage rapid (and I mean on the order of miliseconds) redemption and reissuement of the currency, rather than letting it stay around for a little while to be used as a medium of exchange. The economy would quickly degernate into sucking the Treasury dry of all its energy/currency.

You could try to play the market and buy energy during the off-peak hours to sell during peak hours. And assuming you had an efficient storage/retrieval method for energy (A big assumption) all that would mean is that energy is being stored during the time it would normally be wasted and released during times that it would be most needed. This is a good thing. The more people do this, the less profitable it will become, just like any other industry.

And the current "financial crisis" is pretty good evidence that these speculators would have nothing without the generosity of the Federal Reserve, a generosity that is physically impossible if joulebucks have a minimum value, limiting the degree to which that the currency can be debased.

Oh, I understand it. I even pointed this effect out in an earlier post. What you don't understand is that what you cite as the joule dollar's "strength" is actually a fatal weakness. This "deflationary effect" is a consequence of the fact that electricity is a terrible store of value. One of the three big functions of currency is to serve as a store of value. Furthermore, the difference is not a "tax", it's just gone, lost to heat and entropy.

One of the basic problems of our current system is that we believe in "permanent stores of value," which enables the insane idea of continuous exponential growth in a closed system. That might have been a good metaphor when one of the primary sources of wealth was land, which is fairly permanent, but now everything's based on energy and labor activity. That is very temporary. A "hybrid economy" of gold and joulebucks would probably be best, since "permanent value" still has some legitimacy as an idea.

And don't think I haven't noticed that you have once again not explained how a hard currency is supposed to stop wars.

Because soft currency allows a government to surreptitiously increase its claim on the wealth of a nation. It allows the government to tax everybody without appearing to, and to do this constantly.

The Op doesn't understand what starts war in the first place. He/she is under the assumption that nations start wars and only nations start wars. The reality and increasingly so is that factions start wars. They may call it religious or ideological but it all boils down to a faction not getting what it needs. Even pre WWII Germany was a fcation more than it was a nation. Yes it turned to ultra nationalism to effect war but it was the very fact that a whole people had been disenfranchised from the world which made them susepitable to the leadership of a crazed warmonger, that became drunk with power and self delussion.
Who joins terrorist groups? People that are lost or have been wronged in some manner. I am not talking about the leadership of terrorist. I am talking about the body, the populace of terrorist groups. For the same reason kids join gangs. War will and is a reaction to a social injustice or a need. The militariztion of pre WWII Japan was the fact that it hadn't access to natural resources.
The value of money no matter the standard will never ever stop any war, not in the least.

The Nazis needed resources. The government needs resources. Even terrorists need resources. The only reliable way to get these resources 99.9999% of the time is with money. And if nobody gives you money, then you have to print money. And if you can't do that, then you're just an angry little man in a box.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Our credit rating is declining and will continue to decline if present trends don't reverse themselves. If China wasn't so generous about debasing its currency to protect our economy, we'd literally have nothing.

Our credit rating slipped because the idiots in congress aren't getting budgets together, you boob. And China really does have to protect our economy because we're their biggest customers.

It's the fact that the currency fluctuates in the number of joules it may be exchanged with is the problem, not any floor or ceiling and not getting a minimum amount, because that fluctuating value can be exploited by speculators and swindlers, and will encourage rapid (and I mean on the order of miliseconds) redemption and reissuement of the currency, rather than letting it stay around for a little while to be used as a medium of exchange. The economy would quickly degernate into sucking the Treasury dry of all its energy/currency.

You could try to play the market and buy energy during the off-peak hours to sell during peak hours. And assuming you had an efficient storage/retrieval method for energy (A big assumption) all that would mean is that energy is being stored during the time it would normally be wasted and released during times that it would be most needed. This is a good thing. The more people do this, the less profitable it will become, just like any other industry.

No. The energy would be returned within miliseconds for more currency than was redeemed for. The fraud strategy I propose has fuck all to do with on- or off-peak hours. It has everything to do with the fact that a joule dollar is not being redeemed for exactly the amount of energy the currency represents. That's a fatal defect for any based currency like the one you propose. You admit that a one joule bill is not worth uniformly exactly one joule, and yet you continue to think that it's somehow a "standard."

And the current "financial crisis" is pretty good evidence that these speculators would have nothing without the generosity of the Federal Reserve, a generosity that is physically impossible if joulebucks have a minimum value, limiting the degree to which that the currency can be debased.

Our financial crisis has fuck all to do with the debasement of the dollar. It was caused by poor regulation of securities and loans, which is a different issue ENTIRELY.

Oh, I understand it. I even pointed this effect out in an earlier post. What you don't understand is that what you cite as the joule dollar's "strength" is actually a fatal weakness. This "deflationary effect" is a consequence of the fact that electricity is a terrible store of value. One of the three big functions of currency is to serve as a store of value. Furthermore, the difference is not a "tax", it's just gone, lost to heat and entropy.

One of the basic problems of our current system is that we believe in "permanent stores of value," which enables the insane idea of continuous exponential growth in a closed system. That might have been a good metaphor when one of the primary sources of wealth was land, which is fairly permanent, but now everything's based on energy and labor activity. That is very temporary. A "hybrid economy" of gold and joulebucks would probably be best, since "permanent value" still has some legitimacy as an idea.

Wealth is still linked to land. Try to feed all that labor without land, or house them without land, or give them a place to work without land, or gather resources to produce that energy without land, and you will get nowhere very quickly. As to value, it's a human construct anyway, and a such it can have exponential growth in a closed system because it's not actually material. A based currency's value is primarily a trust issue: that if you redeem the currency you get as much of the base that the currency is noted for. But practically nobody did that even when our currency was fully based, because the base of the currency was besides the point, as long as it could be trusted to buy goods and services.

This would be true even with a joulebuck, because making energy a currency makes it more useful to the average person. You can't feed yourself by sticking a live extension cord into your mouth, but you can use a joulebuck to buy groceries. The real value of the joulebuck —were such a thing to exist— would come not through the electricity it was redeemable for, but from its purchasing power.

Fiat currency is possible because smart people realized that it isn't really the resource backing the currency that gives it value, but rather the trust invested in the currency that you will be able to use it to pay for goods and services. People invest the fiat dollar with value, so it really does have value. Conversely, you can have all the actual backing you want in a competing currency, but if nobody will trust it enough to trade with it, it's worth exactly nothing.

There's also a little irony that, on one hand you rail against the debasement of currency, where the currency is purposefully allowed to grow past its store of value base...

...and then you propose a currency based on a commodity that cannot build a store of value. :-k

And don't think I haven't noticed that you have once again not explained how a hard currency is supposed to stop wars.

Because soft currency allows a government to surreptitiously increase its claim on the wealth of a nation. It allows the government to tax everybody without appearing to, and to do this constantly.

You can also do that by cooking the books, a time-honored way for companies (with no power to debase currency) to increase their apparent wealth. Or you can bamboozle the populace into thinking they are in a fight for survival or way of life, or will be at some point in the future, and thus will swallow an overt tax and/or tollerate a government in overt debt.

Sorry, even if at one time it was true that you couldn't go to war without debasing your coin, it ain't anymore, and as such debasing your coin becomes but one tool in a whole toolchest of financial and political trickery for the warmaker. You probably can't start a war without some form of lying, but there are many, many ways to lie without debasing your currency.

There's also the snag that in order for this joule standard to work, every country has to be in on the plan. However, state right to self governance and all that, there will be many many resisters. As such only a fraction will be under this joule standard by the time the next war breaks out. If you are wrong and a country with a hard currency standard can make war, then war happens anyway, and you have the drawbacks of the hard currency standard without the supposed benefit you advertise. If you are right and a country with a hard currency standard cannot make war, then that country either drops the hard currency standard like a hot potato and war happens anyway, or worse, is conquered and all the countries that don't participate will realize that the hard currency countries are easy pickings. Either way, you will see an about face of policy going back to the old ways.

Yeah, this is unworkable.

[zarus tathra]

Our credit rating slipped because the idiots in congress aren't getting budgets together, you boob.

And just how good are those credit rating systems? "If you fuck up again I'll downgrade you from AAA to AA+! That's like half an A!"

And China really does have to protect our economy because we're their biggest customers.

That's not something that can last forever, not at the current rate. Especially if OPEC starts selling oil for yuan and euros and not just USD.

No. The energy would be returned within miliseconds for more currency than was redeemed for. The fraud strategy I propose has fuck all to do with on- or off-peak hours. It has everything to do with the fact that a joule dollar is not being redeemed for exactly the amount of energy the currency represents. That's a fatal defect for any based currency like the one you propose. You admit that a one joule bill is not worth uniformly exactly one joule, and yet you continue to think that it's somehow a "standard."

So? Why would people get angry about getting more than their money's worth? If the power company stuck to the minimum, then there wouldn't be problems.

Our financial crisis has fuck all to do with the debasement of the dollar. It was caused by poor regulation of securities and loans, which is a different issue ENTIRELY.

Our banks just got bailed out for hundreds of trillions of dollars. You tell me whether that would be possible without a fiat currency. The massive overvaluing of our assets would also be difficult.

Wealth is still linked to land. Try to feed all that labor without land, or house them without land, or give them a place to work without land, or gather resources to produce that energy without land, and you will get nowhere very quickly. As to value, it's a human construct anyway, and a such it can have exponential growth in a closed system because it's not actually material. A based currency's value is primarily a trust issue: that if you redeem the currency you get as much of the base that the currency is noted for. But practically nobody did that even when our currency was fully based, because the base of the currency was besides the point, as long as it could be trusted to buy goods and services.

Which is why a more "permanent" currency should still exist in some form, even if it isn't the majority of the economic activity.

As to "value being a human construct," human constructs have to correspond to real things. If they don't, then you get a little something we call "religion." You might have heard about it, I don't get the feeling that it's too popular around here.

There's also a little irony that, on one hand you rail against the debasement of currency, where the currency is purposefully allowed to grow past its store of value base...

...and then you propose a currency based on a commodity that cannot build a store of value

It can't build a store of value, but it's needed for everything, anyway. It's the limiting factor. That's just life. What's important is that you can't go Zimbabwe style with it the way that all the world's governments are doing currently, and that you can quantify almost all meaningful economic activity in terms of it.

That's what I really mean by "hard." And perhaps "debase" is the wrong term, the proper term is something closer to "inflate," but "manipulate" is probably the better term.

You can also do that by cooking the books, a time-honored way for companies (with no power to debase currency) to increase their apparent wealth. Or you can bamboozle the populace into thinking they are in a fight for survival or way of life, or will be at some point in the future, and thus will swallow an overt tax and/or tollerate a government in overt debt.

Cooking the books becomes a billion times harder when your currency is joulebucks and the power company redeems power for nothing else and probably owns the databases of how many joulebucks everyone has.

And scaring the populace certainly does work, but getting them to open their wallets to the degree that's necessary for war is hard even for fascist regimes. Acceptance new taxes will get you like 10-15% of the way there, the rest has to done with inflation. Without inflation, the taxes would be a billion times more obvious and people would almost certainly never stand for them.

[Hakurei Reimu]

So? Why would people get angry about getting more than their money's worth?

Because not everyone is going to get their money's worth. The treasury, for one, isn't going to get its money's worth. If a customer gets 1.5 joules in exchange for his 1 joule buck, do you really think he is going to be able to store that .5 joule for very long? No! He's going to turn that .5 joule around, send it back to the Treasury, and demand a .5 joule buck in exchange. Not only because he likely doesn't have the means to store that .5 J for very long, but also he gets to pocket that extra .5 J$. But that's not fair to the Treasury, who had to generate that 1.5 J (or more)

Our financial crisis has fuck all to do with the debasement of the dollar. It was caused by poor regulation of securities and loans, which is a different issue ENTIRELY.

Our banks just got bailed out for hundreds of trillions of dollars. You tell me whether that would be possible without a fiat currency. The massive overvaluing of our assets would also be difficult.

1. Value is a subjective measure. Bubbles happened even during times of hard currency because it is a psychological phenomenon. 2. If the banks weren't bailed out, they would have collapsed, which means that a lot of people would have been out of their savings, a lot of companies would not have their credit services, so the economy would have ground to a halt. 3. The banks got into such trouble because they gave loans to people who couldn't pay them off.

Nothing here would have been prevented by a hard currency.

Which is why a more "permanent" currency should still exist in some form, even if it isn't the majority of the economic activity.

The majority of economic activity already isn't. 99% of all commerce is conducted through exchanging numbers. If you write a check, use a credit card, or a debit card, or a wire transfer, all you are doing is exchanging numbers, and not a coin of currency is involved.

There's also a little irony that, on one hand you rail against the debasement of currency, where the currency is purposefully allowed to grow past its store of value base...

...and then you propose a currency based on a commodity that cannot build a store of value

It can't build a store of value, but it's needed for everything, anyway. It's the limiting factor. That's just life.

And nothing about what you said makes electricity a good basis for currency. Time is also a limiting factor, as is space, but nobody makes them currencies.

What's important is that you can't go Zimbabwe style with it the way that all the world's governments are doing currently, and that you can quantify almost all meaningful economic activity in terms of it.

Oh really? How much is a car worth in joules?

That's what I really mean by "hard." And perhaps "debase" is the wrong term, the proper term is something closer to "inflate," but "manipulate" is probably the better term.

So you really think that this joule standard is magically immune to manipulation, even though I pointed out several ways it can be?

Cooking the books becomes a billion times harder when your currency is joulebucks and the power company redeems power for nothing else and probably owns the databases of how many joulebucks everyone has.

Then what you have is an account, not a currency. And a non-private account at that. It would also have all the demonstrated vulnerabilities of Bitcoin. Congradulations.

And scaring the populace certainly does work, but getting them to open their wallets to the degree that's necessary for war is hard even for fascist regimes. Acceptance new taxes will get you like 10-15% of the way there, the rest has to done with inflation. Without inflation, the taxes would be a billion times more obvious and people would almost certainly never stand for them.

Funny, we tolerated that kind of shit for about fifty years during the so-called Cold War. Also, based currencies can inflate, so you have no basis for supposing that such hiding taxes through inflation can't exist, even if that worked.

[zarus tathra]

Because not everyone is going to get their money's worth. The treasury, for one, isn't going to get its money's worth. If a customer gets 1.5 joules in exchange for his 1 joule buck, do you really think he is going to be able to store that .5 joule for very long? No! He's going to turn that .5 joule around, send it back to the Treasury, and demand a .5 joule buck in exchange. Not only because he likely doesn't have the means to store that .5 J for very long, but also he gets to pocket that extra .5 J$. But that's not fair to the Treasury, who had to generate that 1.5 J (or more)

What? What makes you think that people won't have real-time updates regarding the amount of joules they'll get the way they do with existing markets? Are you just obfuscating on purpose? And even if you can sell power to the company, who says you'll get exactly 1 joulebuck for each joule you sell to them at off peak? If you don't need the power as much as you do during peak hours, what makes you think they will? The only part that's "standardized" is the floor on how much you'll get for a joule. The money they pay for power will probably be a little less than you would pay for the same amount of power, that's how gold exchanges work now. There won't be a scheme where you can exponentially increase your joulebucks.

1. Value is a subjective measure. Bubbles happened even during times of hard currency because it is a psychological phenomenon. 2. If the banks weren't bailed out, they would have collapsed, which means that a lot of people would have been out of their savings, a lot of companies would not have their credit services, so the economy would have ground to a halt. 3. The banks got into such trouble because they gave loans to people who couldn't pay them off.

Nothing here would have been prevented by a hard currency.

You're the one who brought up bubbles. I don't give a fuck about bubbles, at least for the sake of this discussion. I'm talking about the government's ability to seize wealth through currency fraud.

The majority of economic activity already isn't. 99% of all commerce is conducted through exchanging numbers. If you write a check, use a credit card, or a debit card, or a wire transfer, all you are doing is exchanging numbers, and not a coin of currency is involved.

Obviously, USD could be considered a "permanent" currency, one that doesn't disappear into a black box like a joulebuck would, even in spite of its constant, ongoing inflation. As long as those databases aren't committing massive fraud, USD is "permanent."

And nothing about what you said makes electricity a good basis for currency. Time is also a limiting factor, as is space, but nobody makes them currencies.

Value isn't permanent. This is especially true when labor constitutes most value. A "permanent store of value" is a terrible currency because economic activity isn't permanent.

So you really think that this joule standard is magically immune to manipulation, even though I pointed out several ways it can be?

I really don't get how it's prone to manipulation. There's the scheme where you buy 1.5 joules with 1 joulebuck and sell it back for 1.5, but again, I don't make that possible under my system. You buy for 0.66, you sell for less than that.

These objections you bring up are really trivial. I'd call them autistic, except autistic people would come up with more obscure, and probably dangerous, weaknesses, which would actually be of use to me. You, on the other hand, seem to purposefully misunderstanding the very basics.

Oh really? How much is a car worth in joules?

You can quantify how many joules were used to make the parts/assemble them/pay the workers/etc. This is a baseline.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Because not everyone is going to get their money's worth. The treasury, for one, isn't going to get its money's worth. If a customer gets 1.5 joules in exchange for his 1 joule buck, do you really think he is going to be able to store that .5 joule for very long? No! He's going to turn that .5 joule around, send it back to the Treasury, and demand a .5 joule buck in exchange. Not only because he likely doesn't have the means to store that .5 J for very long, but also he gets to pocket that extra .5 J$. But that's not fair to the Treasury, who had to generate that 1.5 J (or more)

What? What makes you think that people won't have real-time updates regarding the amount of joules they'll get the way they do with existing markets? Are you just obfuscating on purpose? And even if you can sell power to the company, who says you'll get exactly 1 joulebuck for each joule you sell to them at off peak? If you don't need the power as much as you do during peak hours, what makes you think they will? The only part that's "standardized" is the floor on how much you'll get for a joule. The money they pay for power will probably be a little less than you would pay for the same amount of power, that's how gold exchanges work now. There won't be a scheme where you can exponentially increase your joulebucks.

Then the joulebuck is not actually a based currency at all as you claim, but a fiat currency that is in this case being traded for a commodity with a price cap on it. If you do not get exactly 1 joulebuck for each specific and defined amount of joules whenever and wherever it is exchanged, it is a fiat currency by definition.

You lose. Good day, sir.

[zarus tathra]

Then the joulebuck is not actually a based currency at all as you claim, but a fiat currency that is in this case being traded for a commodity with a price cap on it. If you do not get exactly 1 joulebuck for each specific and defined amount of joules whenever and wherever it is exchanged, it is a fiat currency by definition.

It's actually better than a standard, since you'll get better than the standard rate during off-peak hours. As I've reiterated time and time again. And again. And again. And again. It's abundance, but it's abundance that's been quantified.

The fact that you've reduced your criticism to something so basic and so obvious means that yes, you probably should quit while you're not THAT far behind the rest of the class.