Atheistforums.com

Every major mobilization for war has been financed by a debasement of the currency.

The Union had to create a non-gold-backed currency (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note) to finance its re-conquest of the South. The South's currency was financed by a "promise to pay." (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America_dollar) Nazi Germany had a silver coin with VERY high silver content, but then abandoned it as soon as the war started (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsmark#Coins). Before entering WWII, FDR seized private gold "hoards." (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102) And Britain's global empire was financed by the world's first fiat currency (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England). Without the arbitrary government action that only a widespread acceptance of a "soft" currency could make possible, the world's governments would be completely incapable of waging war.

You mean people need to see through the myth that is money? They haven't been able to since its inception, I don't think it'll change anytime soon.

Haha, too true, but having a "solid" currency that is difficult to manipulate would go a long way towards curbing the abuses of the system.

You can't have a solid currency, because there's no such thing as currency. There's only natural resources and their applications. Even the concept of ownership doesn't exist, it's just something  we made up. And as such, it'll always be subject to modification whenever we decide to change the rules.

People will only follow a system that they trust. The crux of the current system is the trust that people put in paper currency.

I seriously doubt there is enough of anything of worth, such as Gold or Silver, to back a hard currency. Thorium maybe, because of its potential as an energy source, and abundant. But you would be fighting every banking system on the planet to implement it.

I was thinking of having a joule standard, in which currency could be redeemed for a reliable amount of electricity. It's much more relevant to the modern world, IMO, because it tracks real economic production so well.

Soon as the zombie apocalypse happens the currency will be the lack of the zombie virus..not to worry.  [-X

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Every major mobilization for war has been financed by a debasement of the currency.

The Union had to create a non-gold-backed currency (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note) to finance its re-conquest of the South. The South's currency was financed by a "promise to pay." (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America_dollar) Nazi Germany had a silver coin with VERY high silver content, but then abandoned it as soon as the war started (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsmark#Coins). Before entering WWII, FDR seized private gold "hoards." (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102) And Britain's global empire was financed by the world's first fiat currency (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England). Without the arbitrary government action that only a widespread acceptance of a "soft" currency could make possible, the world's governments would be completely incapable of waging war.

Anyone that wants to start a war will do so inspite of a strick monitary standard, worldwide or otherwise.
Sidenote. I have a teaparty neighbor that bought 1 million dinars at the urging of FOX NOISE. He thinks that Iraq will once again start using the currency and he will be an instant millionaire for his 1800 dollar purchase. I told him that he could wipe his ass with the paper but that is all it will ever be worth. The actually have a portrait of Saddam on them. Of course conservaturds never study history. The confederate money is worth squat shit still to this day.
Even if Iraq uses a dinar as it's currency (highly unlikely) it won't be the same and the old currency is decertified and will never be certified again. But hey if FOX tells these idiots to do something they'll sure do it. They buy gold because Glen Beck told them to, even though the company that sold it was successfully prosecuted for misrepresentation. $400 a puchase for an ounce, but it wasn't even close to an ounce of gold. More like 1/100th of an ounce. My neighbor has plenty of those as well and a few Ronald Reagan coins that aren't woth the gumball that you'd get from a coin operated machine for one....if they'd accept it....and they won't.
Currency is a fluid commodity. It is really just a reflection of wealth and power instead of a real representation. President Carter knew this and wanted the WORLD to understand it. So he paid off a great deal of American debt with gold. He was crucifide for it politically even though he was correct.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Every major mobilization for war has been financed by a debasement of the currency.

The Union had to create a non-gold-backed currency (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note) to finance its re-conquest of the South. The South's currency was financed by a "promise to pay." (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America_dollar) Nazi Germany had a silver coin with VERY high silver content, but then abandoned it as soon as the war started (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsmark#Coins). Before entering WWII, FDR seized private gold "hoards." (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102) And Britain's global empire was financed by the world's first fiat currency (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England). Without the arbitrary government action that only a widespread acceptance of a "soft" currency could make possible, the world's governments would be completely incapable of waging war.

I'm not so sure of that.  Wars existed for tens of thousands of years, tied to fixed currency.

I'm rereading The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers right now, from Paul Kennedy, and it deals directly with the issue of war financing.  Without fiat currency, loans can still be floated, often. Inflation can happen, it's true, but that doesn't mean that wars are impossible on a fixed standard.

You don't even need money. All you need is raw materials and enough people willing to listen to your commands, because that's all money represents.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I'm not so sure of that.  Wars existed for tens of thousands of years, tied to fixed currency.

I'm rereading The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers right now, from Paul Kennedy, and it deals directly with the issue of war financing.  Without fiat currency, loans can still be floated, often. Inflation can happen, it's true, but that doesn't mean that wars are impossible on a fixed standard.

Rome saw a massive debasement of its silver denari throughout its Imperial history. And before floating those loans, I'll bet that those governments had been consolidating power and "legitimacy" by buying power and influence with debased coin. You can't just float a massive loan like that without a massive superstructure already in place, one that's probably built up with bad coin.

Nobody has ever consolidated that kind of power on a massive scale without the usage of bad coinage.

Lacking the ability to pay for a war has never stopped anyone from starting one.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I'm not so sure of that.  Wars existed for tens of thousands of years, tied to fixed currency.

I'm rereading The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers right now, from Paul Kennedy, and it deals directly with the issue of war financing.  Without fiat currency, loans can still be floated, often. Inflation can happen, it's true, but that doesn't mean that wars are impossible on a fixed standard.

Rome saw a massive debasement of its silver denari throughout its Imperial history. And before floating those loans, I'll bet that those governments had been consolidating power and "legitimacy" by buying power and influence with debased coin. You can't just float a massive loan like that without a massive superstructure already in place, one that's probably built up with bad coin.

Nobody has ever consolidated that kind of power on a massive scale without the usage of bad coinage.

In Roman days precious metals had the value of the user. Rome wasn't constricted by a set standard. Egypt had a far lesser value on gold than did the Visagoths or the Hun for example. Rome could pay ransom do neighboring war tribes on a lesser scale than to others. However Rome demanded a tribute that matched what it valued gold and silver. It financed it wars in wheat and land.
Things are not so easy today. A nation that has a commodity that the world needs can price it at artificial prices and finance war or terrorism accordingly. Iran for example has used oil and other commodities like pistachios priced at an artificial rate to do so. The UN imposed an embargo but Russia, China, and India have virtually ignored them.

That's the thing, people WERE able to pay for war because people "trusted" their means of financing them.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I'm not so sure of that.  Wars existed for tens of thousands of years, tied to fixed currency.

I'm rereading The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers right now, from Paul Kennedy, and it deals directly with the issue of war financing.  Without fiat currency, loans can still be floated, often. Inflation can happen, it's true, but that doesn't mean that wars are impossible on a fixed standard.

Rome saw a massive debasement of its silver denari throughout its Imperial history. And before floating those loans, I'll bet that those governments had been consolidating power and "legitimacy" by buying power and influence with debased coin. You can't just float a massive loan like that without a massive superstructure already in place, one that's probably built up with bad coin.

Nobody has ever consolidated that kind of power on a massive scale without the usage of bad coinage.

Actually, not so.  Spain, for instance, financed its war against Dutch rebels by loans taken against expected silver income from the New World.  England financed its loans based on its nascent industrial power. The support wasn't debased coinage; it was a real increase in wealth based on new discoveries, either technical or geographic in the two examples above.

Saying that "it was probably built up with bad coin" is just another way of you assuming what you wish to demonstrate; circular reasoning.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"That's the thing, people WERE able to pay for war because people "trusted" their means of financing them.

Ah but Alexander the Great waged war with no financing whatsoever. He conquered the known world without haising a proverbial dime. Sure he assembled assets like horses weapons and men but no wealth to speak of. He went on a ten year campaign without any financing at all. He didn't "buy" anything. He just said lets take Persia and off they went. The next thing you know he owns Asia and the Med.
Granted that might not be the case right now, as a warlord has to actually buy weapons, but with the willingness of corrupt corporations and rogue states to finance such undertakings even if the world used the hard currency of the US dollar, Russia for one could afford to do it. If you hadn't guessed already, large powerful wealthy nations and the corrupt corporations in those nations use proxies to test and gain assets.
Read the manifesto of the Neo-Con Agenda. The NeoCons decided that preemptive armed conflict would give them the wealth power and control that they wanted. It was Dick Chaney's main objective to solidify a corporate controlled world whereby Haliburton would be the corporation that controlled everything. Currency had little to nothing to do with it. Commodities had everything to do with it. After all currency is a representation of commodity asset wealth and nothing more. A dollar is a promise. You provide labor and I give you a dollar that lets you buy the commodity that you so choose. It is an interum trade device. The fact that people save and hoard these promises is a precarious position to say the least. Any state at anytime can change values or renig on promises and the value of the promises held goes out the window. Which is why the teaparty trying to bring down the government was so dangerous and destructive. It would have collapsed the entire financial world (the promise of value).

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I'm not so sure of that.  Wars existed for tens of thousands of years, tied to fixed currency.

I'm rereading The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers right now, from Paul Kennedy, and it deals directly with the issue of war financing.  Without fiat currency, loans can still be floated, often. Inflation can happen, it's true, but that doesn't mean that wars are impossible on a fixed standard.

Rome saw a massive debasement of its silver denari throughout its Imperial history. And before floating those loans, I'll bet that those governments had been consolidating power and "legitimacy" by buying power and influence with debased coin. You can't just float a massive loan like that without a massive superstructure already in place, one that's probably built up with bad coin.

Nobody has ever consolidated that kind of power on a massive scale without the usage of bad coinage.

Actually, not so.  Spain, for instance, financed its war against Dutch rebels by loans taken against expected silver income from the New World.  England financed its loans based on its nascent industrial power. The support wasn't debased coinage; it was a real increase in wealth based on new discoveries, either technical or geographic in the two examples above.

Saying that "it was probably built up with bad coin" is just another way of you assuming what you wish to demonstrate; circular reasoning.

How good was their coin before finding the New World? And the Bank of England was one of the first fiat currencies after the fall of Rome. And financing those wars with "promises" is basically the same as debasing your currency, I mean, you're increasing your currency supply without an increase in the thing backing it.

And even if you do find an example of a big war that wasn't financed with bad money, which those examples aren't, the ratio of wars financed more or less legitimately to wars financed with debasement, "promises to pay," and expropriation will probably be very, very small.

This is why the feds seize every new currency. Without the ability to run the printing press without people complaining, they'd be FUCKED.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"How good was their coin before finding the New World?

How many wars did they start? Your contention is that a weak currency predates wars.  Aside from evicting the Muslims by 1492, Spain was not an aggressive international power.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"And the Bank of England was one of the first fiat currencies after the fall of Rome.

And that was in 1931, well after the First World War, the Boer War, the Crimean War, the War of 1812, the French and Indian War, the ...

You get my drift: a fiat currency obviously was not required to go to war.

 

Quote from: "zarus tathra"And financing those wars with "promises" is basically the same as debasing your currency, I mean, you're increasing your currency supply without an increase in the thing backing it.

No, it isn't.  Increasing the monetary supply is not necessarily debasing currency; it depends on what you do with interest rates.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"And even if you do find an example of a big war that wasn't financed with bad money, which those examples aren't, the ratio of wars financed more or less legitimately to wars financed with debasement, "promises to pay," and expropriation will probably be very, very small.

Wherein you special-plead.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"This is why the feds seize every new currency. Without the ability to run the printing press without people complaining, they'd be FUCKED.

Without government backing, money is much less valuable.  Think about that the next time you buy a six-pack.

Fiat currency isn't the only way to debase currency, one of the primary means of debasing currency is printing coins with inferior silver content but identical face value. In fact, this has been the norm throughout history since the Roman Empire.

And the Bank of England was inaugurated in 1694. Britain could never have built its ginormous navy without the Bank's support.

The Bank of England was on the gold standard until 1931.  It doesn't matter when they started; they weren't fiat until 1931 was my point.

As for your claim of inferior silver content, do you have evidence, or is this just another "probably" thing? Give us some numbers, eh?

Do you really think the BOE was diligent about having a piece of gold for every paper bill it issued? The Bretton Woods system collapsed because the US failed to limit its use of the printing press, and this was in the age of instant telecommunications. And the BOE at one point was forbidden from paying out in gold in a time of war. That law would have been pointless if the BOE had enough gold on hand to back the paper bills in circulation, but obviously the Crown had either been raiding the gold reserves, or the BOE had been running the printing press, or more likely a combination of both. So again, you have war destroying the finances of a country and forcing them to "soften" the currency.

And a source on the debasement of the Roman denarius in the Imperial era is in the OP. The Thaler was special because it was a hard silver coin in an era in which coins had basically no silver in them.

Nowadays, the most valuable financial transactions never touch a single coin in currency. It's all done through banks exchanging numbers. The dollar amounts put on assets is only their 'fair' liquidation value —how many dollars (or whatever) you will get if you convert it to cash. Such figures have jack all to do with whether there exists enough hard currency in the world to cover it.

For instance, there does not exist enough dollars in print to cover the US debt, let alone its worth. It's all numbers, and in the modern world (and even before), most monies exist only as numbers.

Which is why a joule standard would make more sense than a gold standard, although a gold standard would be better than the current system.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"So again, you have war destroying the finances of a country and forcing them to "soften" the currency.

But in your OP, you say that softening the currency is the prelude to war -- not the aftermath, as the above alleges.

Which is it?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Do you really think the BOE was diligent about having a piece of gold for every paper bill it issued? The Bretton Woods system collapsed because the US failed to limit its use of the printing press, and this was in the age of instant telecommunications. And the BOE at one point was forbidden from paying out in gold in a time of war. That law would have been pointless if the BOE had enough gold on hand to back the paper bills in circulation, but obviously the Crown had either been raiding the gold reserves, or the BOE had been running the printing press, or more likely a combination of both. So again, you have war destroying the finances of a country and forcing them to "soften" the currency.

And a source on the debasement of the Roman denarius in the Imperial era is in the OP. The Thaler was special because it was a hard silver coin in an era in which coins had basically no silver in them.

Here's what you wrote:

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Every major mobilization for war has been financed by a debasement of the currency. .

Fish, or cut bait.  Support your claim. It'd probably help if you defined your terms.

You're equivocating the BoE system with Bretton Woods, and hoping that the less-knowledgeable members won't say anything. BoE is not Bretton Woods: one is fiat, one is resource-based, and ne'er the twain shall meet.

You've argued that every major mobilization for war was financed  by devaluation.

Let's see your numbers.

ETA: That's the second request for numbers.  Do you have any?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Which is why a joule standard would make more sense than a gold standard, although a gold standard would be better than the current system.

There is no currency that can possibly buy off the amount of wealth actually present in the world, because anyone who tries quickly finds that their currency is inflated without limit. What you actually get is a larger amount of currency chasing the same amount of goods, so naturally the prices will go up. Indeed, as wealth is funneled away and concentrated beyond a certain point, people will demand higher and higher prices before they will trade away their goods, because you can't live of any kind of money alone. You have to have food, shelter, and so on. And —yes— energy itself.

No standard of basing will solve this issue.

Even if there was some sort of global "solid" currency, it would just take one nation to go soft and start shit.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"But in your OP, you say that softening the currency is the prelude to war -- not the aftermath, as the above alleges.

Which is it?

It is the debasement of currency that makes war possible. That has always been my basic claim.

Quote

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Every major mobilization for war has been financed by a debasement of the currency. .

Fish, or cut bait.  Support your claim. It'd probably help if you defined your terms.

Every single example that I brought up involved the sudden increase of the supply of money without a corresponding increase in a solid commodity.

QuoteYou're equivocating the BoE system with Bretton Woods, and hoping that the less-knowledgeable members won't say anything. BoE is not Bretton Woods: one is fiat, one is resource-based, and ne'er the twain shall meet.

The BoE was a gold standard that failed in times of war, Bretton Woods was a system whereby foreign countries could exchange USD for $35 on the oz, except they couldn't. So they're actually pretty similar.

QuoteYou've argued that every major mobilization for war was financed  by devaluation.

Let's see your numbers.

ETA: That's the second request for numbers.  Do you have any?

Every example that I've brought up was an example of debasement, as was every "counterpoint" you've managed to bring up. That's about as good as we're going to get without a more in-depth study.

I'm starting to think that you're deliberately trying not to understand what I'm saying.

Quote from: "Sal1981"Even if there was some sort of global "solid" currency, it would just take one nation to go soft and start shit.

Which is why these currency standards have to be privately run (and guarded).

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Every example that I've brought up was an example of debasement, as was every "counterpoint" you've managed to bring up. That's about as good as we're going to get without a more in-depth study.

I'm starting to think that you're deliberately trying not to understand what I'm saying.

Now that's some irony, there.

Every point I've brought up has showed that in the lead-up to war, a sound currency based on a gold standard did not prevent a war.

A working theory has to explain contradictory facts.  You need therefore to explain how a hard currency standard failed to prevent World War One, or the Boer War, or ...

Because what you said was that a hard standard prevents wars.  

I'm trying to understand what you're saying, but all I'm seeing is pretzel logic deplyed in defense of an unsupported (and probably unsupportable) claim.

If a country can debase its coinage without anyone seeming to care, then that's not a "hard currency standard." And that's why I believe in privately run gold/silver banking, because no private bank can fuck up the way a government bank can and survive for very long.

A hard currency standard is a very good idea. I propose a blowjob-based currency where the bearer is entitled to one blowjob. Tell me that isn't a currency that everyone can value.

There's actually a book called Schismatrix where one of the major powers is a "geisha bank" where the currency used is hours of service.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"If a country can debase its coinage without anyone seeming to care, then that's not a "hard currency standard."

You haven't demonstrated that that has happened in any case; you've alleged it in the case of Rome, and said it has "probably" happened elsewhere -- with no evidence.

 

Quote from: "zarus tathra"And that's why I believe in privately run gold/silver banking, because no private bank can fuck up the way a government bank can and survive for very long.

Governments won't permit that, because a reliable money supply is vital to economic health.

Did you not see all those links in my op? (//http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=985191#p985191) And here's a link about the debasement of the silver coins during the Imperial era (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_currency#Debasement_of_the_currency). I thought I'd posted a link about it, sorry.

In every single example I post, there's an abandonment of any sort of hard metal standard, either through seizures or through debasement or the replacement of hard silver with paper.

A government-run currency is only "reliable" because people are willing to be fleeced by their government.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Did you not see all those links in my op? (//http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=985191#p985191) And here's a link about the debasement of the silver coins during the Imperial era (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_currency#Debasement_of_the_currency). I thought I'd posted a link about it, sorry.

In every single example I post, there's an abandonment of any sort of hard metal standard, either through seizures or through debasement or the replacement of hard silver with paper.

Oddly enough, none of those address the First World War, a war which started while every major bank in the world was on a fixed gold standard, and which, despite your claim, started anyway.

Your hypothesis must explain contradictory data if it is to be useful.

Here you go (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Impact_of_World_War_I). Massive suspensions of metal/paper convertibility in pretty much every country in the world, even Germany, which was the center of the Thaler, a high-silver coin that was the European standard all throughout its history.

Did I read this correctly, a hard one is key to world peace?!?  :P

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Did I read this correctly, a hard one is key to world peace?!?  :P

maaaayyyybe (//http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=985532#p985532)

But I think an energy standard is best, and that book actually uses stored electricity as the universal currency outside of the one colony that has the Geisha Bank. Gold and silver are nice alternatives to the BS that is paper money, but I think joule production and the efficiency of usage are MUCH more relevant metrics of economic power with much less of a delay.

I think you're getting away from a point that you have yet to explain, zarus: how does a hard currency standard prevent wars? You've put forward examples, but examples are not explanations.

Nor do you explain how the joule standard is a hard currency, given that in any transport system for energy, there is always loss.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Here you go (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Impact_of_World_War_I). Massive suspensions of metal/paper convertibility in pretty much every country in the world, even Germany, which was the center of the Thaler, a high-silver coin that was the European standard all throughout its history.

Your wiki article contradicts you:

QuoteBy the end of 1913, the classical gold standard was at its peak but World War I caused many countries to suspend or abandon it.

In other words, fiat currency wasn't the cause of that war, but a result.

Did you read that first, or did you simply think that linking to a wiki would look good?

A joule standard is "hard currency" because the commodity that underpins it is necessary in a physical sense and not merely a social sense. Because there can't be any economic activity without the use and movement of energy, while with paper bills anything can happen. As long as you run the printing press, you can make anything you want happen.

And a paper/gold standard isn't really a hard currency, because governments can and do print paper bills for much more gold than it can be redeemed for. By the time they formally abandon the gold standard, it's always after years of running the printing press. The Feds did that with Bretton Woods, the European powers did that with their gold standards, it's only in times of war that this debasement becomes so obvious that they have to actually come out and admit to their fraud.

Warlike governments generally need soft currencies because governments are always broke/in debt and going to war is super-expensive, so wars almost always push them over the edge.

QuoteIn other words, fiat currency wasn't the cause of that war, but a result.

Did you read that first, or did you simply think that linking to a wiki would look good?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Here you go (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Impact_of_World_War_I). Massive suspensions of metal/paper convertibility in pretty much every country in the world, even Germany, which was the center of the Thaler, a high-silver coin that was the European standard all throughout its history.

Your wiki article contradicts you:

QuoteBy the end of 1913, the classical gold standard was at its peak but World War I caused many countries to suspend or abandon it.

In other words, fiat currency wasn't the cause of that war, but a result.

Did you read that first, or did you simply think that linking to a wiki would look good?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Here you go (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Impact_of_World_War_I). Massive suspensions of metal/paper convertibility in pretty much every country in the world, even Germany, which was the center of the Thaler, a high-silver coin that was the European standard all throughout its history.

Your wiki article contradicts you:

QuoteBy the end of 1913, the classical gold standard was at its peak but World War I caused many countries to suspend or abandon it.

In other words, fiat currency wasn't the cause of that war, but a result.

Did you read that first, or did you simply think that linking to a wiki would look good?

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.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"A joule standard is "hard currency" because the commodity that underpins it is necessary in a physical sense and not merely a social sense. Because there can't be any economic activity without the use and movement of energy, while with paper bills anything can happen. As long as you run the printing press, you can make anything you want happen.

Okay then, suppose I bring my 1 joule bill to the mint to have it redeemed for electrical energy. How much of that 1 joule do I actually get, and how much does the mint have to generate in order to get me that?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"And a paper/gold standard isn't really a hard currency, because governments can and do print paper bills for much more gold than it can be redeemed for. By the time they formally abandon the gold standard, it's always after years of running the printing press. The Feds did that with Bretton Woods, the European powers did that with their gold standards, it's only in times of war that this debasement becomes so obvious that they have to actually come out and admit to their fraud.

You can do that with the "joule standard," too. You can print more joule money than the government will ever be able to redeem. Remember that the resources used to make the currency has to be less value than the currency produced. With high denomination bills, the difference between the value of the resources used and the value of the currency can be extreme. A dollar bill costs much less than a dollar for the US Treasury to print; a $100,000 bill hardly costs more to print than a one dollar bill.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Warlike governments generally need soft currencies because governments are always broke/in debt and going to war is super-expensive, so wars almost always push them over the edge.

Always broke/in debt? Really? They never run surpluses or hit a rich vein of silver that they could easily turn into kizzash? You're being awfully vague here.

QuoteOkay then, suppose I bring my 1 joule bill to the mint to have it redeemed for electrical energy. How much of that 1 joule do I actually get, and how much does the mint have to generate in order to get me that?

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.

QuoteYou can do that with the "joule standard," too. You can print more joule money than the government will ever be able to redeem. Remember that the resources used to make the currency has to be less value than the currency produced. With high denomination bills, the difference between the value of the resources used and the value of the currency can be extreme. A dollar bill costs much less than a dollar for the US Treasury to print; a $100,000 bill hardly costs more to print than a one dollar bill.

And they'd know right away if the government/power company were doing that. The power would go out and people would get pissed. With a gold standard, the bills are almost never redeemed, and even then only with great trouble. With a joule standard, this redemption would be continuous and exacting. If they "debased" the currency and started giving people less than their money's worth, people would know that, too. That's why energy would be the hardest currency of all, because it would be so difficult to inflate.

Incidentally, this would probably lead to an incredible degree of predictability in all the world's financial markets. Everybody would know EXACTLY how much everything costs.

QuoteAlways broke/in debt? Really? They never run surpluses or hit a rich vein of silver that they could easily turn into kizzash? You're being awfully vague here.

The Thaler came about because of the discovery of silver mines, that is true, but this is not the norm.

I feel that this would be by far the most direct form of democracy ever devised.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteOkay then, suppose I bring my 1 joule bill to the mint to have it redeemed for electrical energy. How much of that 1 joule do I actually get, and how much does the mint have to generate in order to get me that?

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.

The upshot being that the amount of energy going into the system would not equal and exceed the amount of energy coming out of the system. There's going to be loss. Thus, the redeemer is going to have to pay more than one joule dollar's worth for every joule dollar that is redeemed. Furthermore, if you want to re-exchange your 1 joule for a joule dollar again, the other party isn't going to accept anything less than 1 joule at his end in exchange for it and probably more to cover the redemption losses. You would have to input more than one 1 joule to receive a (supposed) 1 joule dollar's amount. And electricity doesn't just sit around like a good material, either; you have to charge batteries with it, or spin up gyroscopes, or it just disappears, and those energy storage systems come with their own conversion losses. And even if you have the energy in these storage devices, there will be losses from them just sitting around. As time progresses, the amount of worth in a joule dollar goes down; it has inflation built-in.

Tell me again how this is supposed to be a hard currency?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteYou can do that with the "joule standard," too. You can print more joule money than the government will ever be able to redeem. Remember that the resources used to make the currency has to be less value than the currency produced. With high denomination bills, the difference between the value of the resources used and the value of the currency can be extreme. A dollar bill costs much less than a dollar for the US Treasury to print; a $100,000 bill hardly costs more to print than a one dollar bill.

And they'd know right away if the government/power company were doing that. The power would go out and people would get pissed. With a gold standard, the bills are almost never redeemed, and even then only with great trouble. With a joule standard, this redemption would be continuous and exacting. If they "debased" the currency and started giving people less than their money's worth, people would know that, too. That's why energy would be the hardest currency of all, because it would be so difficult to inflate.

Nonsense. The joules used to base the medium of exchange would not be related to the joules used for everyday domestic use. "Basing" means that the government guarantees that if you give the currency back to be redeemed, you get the correct amount of the base of the currency. The currency, remember, is used in lieu of the base of the currency. Electricity is pretty inconvenient for casual exchange into currency — you have to funnel it to the Treasury, where it is metered and stored (at a loss). The joule in its currency form is much much more stable and suitable as a medium of exchange than in its electrical form, so it will tend to be kept in that form for as long as possible. That means the volume of joule dollars that the Treasury will have to redeem at any one time will be small compared to the total number in circulation. A bluff is easy to achieve in this case.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Incidentally, this would probably lead to an incredible degree of predictability in all the world's financial markets. Everybody would know EXACTLY how much everything costs.

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.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteAlways broke/in debt? Really? They never run surpluses or hit a rich vein of silver that they could easily turn into kizzash? You're being awfully vague here.

The Thaler came about because of the discovery of silver mines, that is true, but this is not the norm.

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

Quote from: "zarus tathra"I feel that this would be by far the most direct form of democracy ever devised.

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?

It seems that the only reason that it would would be the lack of money, when money is really not related to the currency that your hard currency standard would create. So how does it all work?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"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.

I think this answered like 80% of your objections

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteAgain, 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.

QuoteWhich 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.

QuoteYou "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.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"I think this answered like 80% of your objections

QuoteThe 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?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"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.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteAgain, 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.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"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).

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteYou "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?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"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.

QuoteSo 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.

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteIf 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.

QuoteYou 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.

QuoteOr 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.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteSo 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.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"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.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"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?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"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.)

Quote from: "zarus tathra"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?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteYou 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.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"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.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"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.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteOr 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?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"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.

QuoteWe 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.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteWe 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.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"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.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"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?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"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.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"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.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"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?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"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.

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.

QuoteI 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.

QuoteIt'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.

QuoteOh, 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.

QuoteAnd 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.

QuoteThe 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.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"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.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteIt'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."

Quote from: "zarus tathra"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.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteOh, 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

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteAnd 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.

QuoteOur 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!"

QuoteAnd 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.

QuoteNo. 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.

QuoteOur 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.

QuoteWealth 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.

QuoteThere'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.

QuoteYou 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.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"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)

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteOur 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.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"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.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteThere'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.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"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?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"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?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"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. (//http://www.informationweek.com/security/attacks-and-breaches/bitcoin-thefts-surge-ddos-hackers-take-millions/d/d-id/1112831) Congradulations.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"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.

QuoteBecause 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.

Quote1. 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.

QuoteThe 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."

QuoteAnd 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.

QuoteSo 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.

QuoteOh 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.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteBecause 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.

QuoteThen 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.

That's not better, that's asking to be butt-raped as a country by anyone smart enough to buy during peak hours and selling back during off-peak hours... which is basically everyone.

And if they have battery technology that's efficient enough to store it and retrieve it efficiently that the power company is too lazy to use itself, then that's what it deserves. Which is a moot point, because that technology does not exist yet.

And if the power company managed to build such technology itself, then it would probably just redirect most energy to the energy stores at night and just start charging standardized rates. But again, that tech does not yet exist.

Hey, is the brick wall still standing?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"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.

No. It means that I know what the words you use actually mean, instead of what you want them to mean. Your criticism of fiat dollars is that they may be printed without a care and so the government can create money out of thin air, as if this is a special power of the government and only the government. This is wrong. The US government is the only entity that can print currency, but currency isn't money. Banks create money through lending. The government creates money by borrowing money in the form of selling bonds, and then making good on them when those bonds mature. The Treasury's job is to exchange between non-currency monies and currency money — it buys dollars and then prints them. The Treasury doesn't actually create money at all. It just prints it in the form of currency.

Your joule-based currency only creates yet another currency, a currency that is quite clearly fiat and does not have an actual base as you have so adequately proved yourself. It is thus susceptible to the kind of schenanningans that you fear from any other fiat currency. And even if you somehow made it a proper based currency, the joulebuck wouldn't touch any kind of illicit commerce that does not intersect with currency, because while they use dollars in evaluating the worth of assets and monies, the dollar is only being used as a unit of account, and has nothing to do with the dollars in currency that are actually being shuffled around, if any.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"And if they have battery technology that's efficient enough to store it and retrieve it efficiently that the power company is too lazy to use itself, then that's what it deserves. Which is a moot point, because that technology does not exist yet.

And if the power company managed to build such technology itself, then it would probably just redirect most energy to the energy stores at night and just start charging standardized rates. But again, that tech does not yet exist.

You do know that it's on- and off-peak somewhere in the world at any one time, right? It's therefore not a matter of storage, but of transport infrastructure, and a well-developed grid can shuffle electricity about easily enough. The power grid already does this to some extent already, but currently this doesn't actually result in the de neuvo creation of currency, as it shouldn't, but rather just as an increased profit. Your scheme would create new currency, constantly.

Even based currency inflates if there's too much around for the market of goods to use, as happened in Spain when it got its gold and silver from the New World, because inflation has nothing to do with its base and everything to do with how it is regarded as another commodity.

QuoteYou do know that it's on- and off-peak somewhere in the world at any one time, right? It's therefore not a matter of storage, but of transport infrastructure, and a well-developed grid can shuffle electricity about easily enough. The power grid already does this to some extent already, but currently this doesn't actually result in the de neuvo creation of currency, as it shouldn't, but rather just as an increased profit. Your scheme would create new currency, constantly.

So when they buy back energy the price you get will account for the distance loss. Invalidating yet another "scheme."

So now you have a currency whose value is dependant on how far you live from a powerplant. That's going to be an interesting one to pay with. Imagine your dollar being worth only 80 cents in the next city.

It would probably encourage massive urbanization. But I agree that a joule standard would never be the ONLY standard.

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"

Quote from: "zarus tathra"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.

No. It means that I know what the words you use actually mean, instead of what you want them to mean. Your criticism of fiat dollars is that they may be printed without a care and so the government can create money out of thin air, as if this is a special power of the government and only the government. This is wrong. The US government is the only entity that can print currency, but currency isn't money. Banks create money through lending. The government creates money by borrowing money in the form of selling bonds, and then making good on them when those bonds mature. The Treasury's job is to exchange between non-currency monies and currency money — it buys dollars and then prints them. The Treasury doesn't actually create money at all. It just prints it in the form of currency.

Your joule-based currency only creates yet another currency, a currency that is quite clearly fiat and does not have an actual base as you have so adequately proved yourself. It is thus susceptible to the kind of schenanningans that you fear from any other fiat currency. And even if you somehow made it a proper based currency, the joulebuck wouldn't touch any kind of illicit commerce that does not intersect with currency, because while they use dollars in evaluating the worth of assets and monies, the dollar is only being used as a unit of account, and has nothing to do with the dollars in currency that are actually being shuffled around, if any.

Thanks for explaining that to him. Now get you're butt over to FOX and explain it to them because they don't know shit from shinola!

If the variable joule standard puts stringent limits on how much currency can be printed even while allowing for variation to maintain near-full usage even during off-peak hours, then I would say that it accomplished everything that a hard standard is meant to accomplish.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"If the variable joule standard puts stringent limits on how much currency can be printed even while allowing for variation to maintain near-full usage even during off-peak hours, then I would say that it accomplished everything that a hard standard is meant to accomplish.

I get your joule standard but that is just making money real and it isn't. It really hasn't ever been from the moment the first caveman realized that his flint rock would be worth more skins to one tribe that it would to another.

I'll bet two joules against an erg that you're wrong.

Then I guess the programs that a technician enters into an industrial robot aren't real either. That's what machines do, they make abstractions real, up to a point. Since power generators are the engine of our system, and since their behavior is relatively predictable, it makes sense to base a monetary system around quantifying their output and their usage.

QuoteImagine your dollar being worth only 80 cents in the next city.

We already have that now. Try living in NYC off 40k a year.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteImagine your dollar being worth only 80 cents in the next city.

We already have that now. Try living in NYC off 40k a year.

Yeah exactly. And the current system, as you have said so many times, sucks. And yours is the same. I do hope you can reach the only valid conclusion by yourself at this point.

That's not the part of our current system that sucks, I'm not stupid enough to make the abolition of supply/demand a goal.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"So when they buy back energy the price you get will account for the distance loss. Invalidating yet another "scheme."

On and off peak has nothing to do with distance loss.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"That's not the part of our current system that sucks, I'm not stupid enough to make the abolition of supply/demand a goal.

That's all it takes.

I'm for returning to a Gold/Silver standard, but we'll have to find some way to enforce it and prevent governments from skirting the law.  In this way, countries would have to save for multiple decades to even think about fighting a war, and because they would have no "good way" of estimating its cost; fighting such a war would likely bankrupt any country that chose to take this road.

The best way I can think of is to have private currencies that are regularly "stress tested" by the customers.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"The best way I can think of is to have private currencies that are regularly "stress tested" by the customers.

I would love to see competing currencies, but I think all currencies should be backed by something real.  And to me, real money (i.e. Gold & Silver) is the best backing available.

I meant gold or energy-backed currencies. I should have made that clear. A joule standard is easier to stress-test, since simply by using energy we would be stress-testing it.

QuoteAnd to me, real money (i.e. Gold & Silver) is the best backing available.

Gold and silver are quite useless materials, though. They're no more real than any other as they serve little utilitarian purpose. It's just been hammered into our heads that they're valuable for so long that most people have started to accept it as a universal truth. Even up to the point where their industrial application can suffer because their prices are so far artificially inflated. (Like with diamonds)

Quote from: "zarus tathra"I meant gold or energy-backed currencies. I should have made that clear. A joule standard is easier to stress-test, since simply by using energy we would be stress-testing it.

A currency where a large portion of it is being redeemed and reissued is one that is not working very well. Also, in any practical implementation, the energy that is being generated for normal use will be separate from the energy that is being used to redeem the currency — that energy will not be exchanged for currency, it will simply be bought and sold with money as would any other commodity. Nothing is being "stress-tested" here.

You're still tripping over this stumbling block that, because we need energy for everything we do, that this makes it a good basis for a currency. I have already outlined why it is not. The value of the joulebuck will still, ultimately, depend on how much trust you put in it, no matter what its basis or even if it has any at all. Stress-testing, in and of itself, diminishes the value of the joulebuck because it is a clear demonstration that you don't really trust it, whereas despite your protests to the contrary, you still value the US dollar because you still use it as if it really will buy you a dollar's worth of goods.

Because that's all that monetary value is — the trust that the money is worth what it says it is.

The issue here isn't whether or not the currency is "useful," the issue is whether or not the currency is by its very nature forced to correspond to physical and social realities, which a fiat currency is not.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"The issue here isn't whether or not the currency is "useful," the issue is whether or not the currency is by its very nature forced to correspond to physical and social realities, which a fiat currency is not.

Totally wrong. If the US GDP would suddenly have a huge rise, the US dollar would rise against other currencies, and for your US dollar, you could buy more stuff from imported goods.

Inflating the USD would cause the GDP to rise, what then?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Inflating the USD would cause the GDP to rise, what then?

You've got this in reverse: A rising GDP would cause the US dollar to rise, all else being equal.

Inflating the USD would raise the prices of everything while doing little to increase/decrease economic activity over the long run, thus inflating GDP without a rise in anything. Because GDP is retarded and we shouldn't use it.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Inflating the USD would raise the prices of everything while doing little to increase/decrease economic activity over the long run, thus inflating GDP without a rise in anything. Because GDP is retarded and we shouldn't use it.

And how does one inflate the US dollar, by waving a magic wand??? It doesn't work that way. The rise and fall of the dollar will be the result of some economic activity, be it that interest rates are moving up or down, which in this case would be from a particular monetary policy of the FEd, or the up/down of the GDP, which would be the result of increased productivity, or an increase/decrease of the money supply due to deficit expansionary policies of the US government, or the up/down of foreign economies Vs  US economy.

BTW, GDP is retared for those who are clueless about basic economic principles.

If a hurricane hits DC and the government spends a bajillion dollars to rebuild it, then that's a jump in GDP even though in material terms that's a ginormous loss.

If increasing prices causes everything's price to jump 20% but people still buy things at the same rate as before, that's a jump in GDP even though everyone's doing everything the same way.

Etc.

QuoteAnd how does one inflate the US dollar, by waving a magic wand???

By printing money/changing a database entry, so yeah, kinda.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"If a hurricane hits DC and the government spends a bajillion dollars to rebuild it, then that's a jump in GDP even though in material terms that's a ginormous loss.

It's not a foregone conclusion that the GDP would go up in this case, as one must take into account that many won't be working on account that the factory or the shop at the mall has been destroyed. So, some people are going to work extra - those who will be involved in the reconstruction - but there are others who will be laid off. Also, money spent on reconstruction is NOT money spent on new equipment/buildings, or on reducing government debt, or on tax cuts. The whole effect is usually negative on the GDP, not positive.

QuoteIf increasing prices causes everything's price to jump 20% but people still buy things at the same rate as before, that's a jump in GDP even though everyone's doing everything the same way.

Prices don't increase on their own. There has to be a cause. And there are two types of GDP that are always measured: real GDP, which has been adjusted to inflation; and nomimal GDP, which is not adjusted to inflation.

Quote

QuoteAnd how does one inflate the US dollar, by waving a magic wand???

By printing money/changing a database entry, so yeah, kinda.

The Fed only prints money to replace old bills that have been worn out. It's an old myth that the FED inundates the market by printing more money. Stop watching Fox News. And maybe you'll make more sense. As it is, your knowledge of economics stinks.

QuoteIt's not a foregone conclusion that the GDP would go up in this case, as one must take into account that many won't be working on account that the factory or the shop at the mall has been destroyed. So, some people are going to work extra - those who will be involved in the reconstruction - but there are others who will be laid off. Also, money spent on reconstruction is NOT money spent on new equipment/buildings, or on reducing government debt, or on tax cuts. The whole effect is usually negative on the GDP, not positive.

If the old buildings are destroyed and they build new buildings, then that's "new economic activity."

QuotePrices don't increase on their own. There has to be a cause. And there are two types of GDP that are always measured: real GDP, which has been adjusted to inflation; and nomimal GDP, which is not adjusted to inflation.

The cause is that some people have more money that was created by the Fed.

QuoteThe Fed only prints money to replace old bills that have been worn out. It's an old myth that the FED inundates the market by printing more money. Stop watching Fox News. And maybe you'll make more sense. As it is, your knowledge of economics stinks.

here you go (//http://money.howstuffworks.com/fed10.htm)

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteIt's not a foregone conclusion that the GDP would go up in this case, as one must take into account that many won't be working on account that the factory or the shop at the mall has been destroyed. So, some people are going to work extra - those who will be involved in the reconstruction - but there are others who will be laid off. Also, money spent on reconstruction is NOT money spent on new equipment/buildings, or on reducing government debt, or on tax cuts. The whole effect is usually negative on the GDP, not positive.

If the old buildings are destroyed and they build new buildings, then that's "new economic activity."

Which part of "It's not a foregone conclusion that the GDP would go up in this case, as one must take into account that many won't be working on account that the factory or the shop at the mall has been destroyed. So, some people are going to work extra - those who will be involved in the reconstruction - but there are others who will be laid off. Also, money spent on reconstruction is NOT money spent on new equipment/buildings, or on reducing government debt, or on tax cuts. The whole effect is usually negative on the GDP, not positive" don't you understand?

Quote

QuotePrices don't increase on their own. There has to be a cause. And there are two types of GDP that are always measured: real GDP, which has been adjusted to inflation; and nomimal GDP, which is not adjusted to inflation.

The cause is that some people have more money that was created by the Fed.

If prices are increasing (inflation up), that's because there is more demand than supply. Business, which provides the supply, can't meet the demand from consumers. Hence prices go up, inflation goes up. Learn the basics before uttering stupidities.

Quote

QuoteThe Fed only prints money to replace old bills that have been worn out. It's an old myth that the FED inundates the market by printing more money. Stop watching Fox News. And maybe you'll make more sense. As it is, your knowledge of economics stinks.

here you go (//http://money.howstuffworks.com/fed10.htm)

Yes, indeed, the FED will buy assets from banks to lower their required reserve, hence increasing the banks' excess reserves, thus allowing the banks to make more loans. However, since 2008, the financial crisis, the FED has been buying loads of assets - $4 trillions worth - but the banks have not increased their loans. Hence, the slow recovery. Just to let you know that the FED has only indirect impact on the money supply.

QuoteIf prices are increasing (inflation up), that's because there is more demand than supply. Business, which provides the supply, can't meet the demand from consumers. Hence prices go up, inflation goes up. Learn the basics before uttering stupidities.

No, it's because the ratio of the amount of money to the amount of actual wealth in the economy is increasing. Ever hear of monetarism?

QuoteYes, indeed, the FED will buy assets from banks to lower their required reserve, hence increasing the banks' excess reserves, thus allowing the banks to make more loans. However, since 2008, the financial crisis, the FED has been buying loads of assets - $4 trillions worth - but the banks have not increased their loans. Hence, the slow recovery. Just to let you know that the FED has only indirect impact on the money supply.

Because the banks realize they don't have to make loans to make money.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteIf prices are increasing (inflation up), that's because there is more demand than supply. Business, which provides the supply, can't meet the demand from consumers. Hence prices go up, inflation goes up. Learn the basics before uttering stupidities.

No, it's because the ratio of the amount of money to the amount of actual wealth in the economy is increasing. Ever hear of monetarism?

For your education:

QuoteDefinition: Inflation is an increase in the price of a basket of goods and services that is representative of the economy as a whole.
http://economics.about.com/od/helpforec ... lation.htm (http://economics.about.com/od/helpforeconomicsstudents/f/inflation.htm)

As for monetarism, that is a theory that focusses on how the government can affect the money supply. It failed on mainy fronts: (1) it did not stimulate the economy in the period 2001-3 as Greenspan had thought it would; (2) it failed to provide the mechanism to avoid the liquidity trap in 2008.

Quote

QuoteYes, indeed, the FED will buy assets from banks to lower their required reserve, hence increasing the banks' excess reserves, thus allowing the banks to make more loans. However, since 2008, the financial crisis, the FED has been buying loads of assets - $4 trillions worth - but the banks have not increased their loans. Hence, the slow recovery. Just to let you know that the FED has only indirect impact on the money supply.

Because the banks realize they don't have to make loans to make money.

How is that related to my point that the FED has only indirect impact on the money supply? Secondly, the banks do make money by making loans, another of your stupid comments that comes from nowhere.

And if the Feds pay people to just sit there, or to scare pigeons away from monuments, or to bury and then dig up bottles of money, like Keynes said, that's an increase in the GDP without anything meaningful produced. Again, GDP is retarded.

QuoteAs for monetarism, that is a theory that focusses on how the government can affect the money supply. It failed on mainy fronts: (1) it did not stimulate the economy in the period 2001-3 as Greenspan had thought it would; (2) it failed to provide the mechanism to avoid the liquidity trap in 2008.

Okay, so monetarism failed, while Keynesian economics kind of succeeded for a while because it was more direct.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"And if the Feds pay people to just sit there, or to scare pigeons away from monuments, or to bury and then dig up bottles of money, like Keynes said, that's an increase in the GDP without anything meaningful produced. Again, GDP is retarded.

One can spend his/her money foolishly. Who is to say that the production of donuts is useful, considering that eating them makes people obese, in danger of being diabetic? Yet, the production of donuts is counted in the GDP. So the government could in theory spend money on useless projects. But in a democracy, as I have pointed before, it's up to the people to be well informed and vigilant to make sure such wastes are denounced, and hopefully, when they go next time in the ballot box, they will vote out the politicians who waste taxpayer's money.

As far as GDP is concerned, it is the only way to figure what affects employment. The goal of the FED is to reduce unemployment/keep inflation well anchored. It can only do its job properly by knowing how many jobs there are and what is the inflation rate, and to do that, it must know such things as aggregate demand, investments, interest rates, disposable income, and yes, the GDP, which is the total output of the economy.

Quote

QuoteAs for monetarism, that is a theory that focusses on how the government can affect the money supply. It failed on mainy fronts: (1) it did not stimulate the economy in the period 2001-3 as Greenspan had thought it would; (2) it failed to provide the mechanism to avoid the liquidity trap in 2008.

Okay, so monetarism failed, while Keynesian economics kind of succeeded for a while because it was more direct.

Keynesian economics can only succeed if it is applied properly. Unfortunately, many politicians are clueless about economic matters, and they tend to screw up, either deliberately as in the case of the GOP, or unintentionally as they are willfully ignorant, that applies to members of both parties.

One of the basic principles of Keynesian economics is that you're supposed to RAISE taxes when things are booming so that booms and busts are both lower and extremes are never met. I think we all know how that went.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"One of the basic principles of Keynesian economics is that you're supposed to RAISE taxes when things are booming so that booms and busts are both lower and extremes are never met. I think we all know how that went.

If the economy is in the boom phase, then the prescription is to decrease the money supply. Raising taxes is one way to decrease the money supply but it's not the only way. A second option is for the FED to increase the interest rate; and a third option is for the government to cut spending. From 2010, when the GOP took control of the House of Representatives, they were advocating government cuts in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the 1930's - that was an indication that the GOP was either made up of a bunch of ignoramuses, or they were willfully trying to further sabotage the economy.

Note that raising taxes is an impossible task if the GOP controls any of the branches of the government, as raising taxes is a doctrinal taboo in their platform, yet it's a crucial option if ever the government would be faced with an uncontrollable hyperinflation.

Looking at the NYSE and the Federal Reserve Discount rate, I have to conclude that their policy was basically the opposite of what they're supposed to do.

They kept the Discount Rate low all throughout the 50's boom and only sharply increased it once the NYSE was declining in the late 60's. Then they jacked it all through the age of stagflation and brought it back down throughout the Reagan boom.

Everything they do goes against basically every well-established economic theory. I can't think of any economist who believes that we should contract the money supply when things are bad and expand it when irrational exhuberance takes hold. And yet that's exactly what our central bank does.

(//http://www.frbsf.org/education/files/drecon_0208a.gif)

(//http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2-18-11-Market-Cap-1.gif)

I hope you realize that market capitalization is not a good metric indicator of what's happening in the economy. Secondly, the stock market speculates as to what will happen to the economy in 6-to-12 months ahead. Sometimes, it's right, and sometimes it's wrong. So those graphs are not indicative of what was really going on.

It's generally acknowledged that the 50's and the early 80's - late 90's was a boom time for America, and that stagflation took hold in the late 70's, etc.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Looking at the NYSE and the Federal Reserve Discount rate, I have to conclude that their policy was basically the opposite of what they're supposed to do.

They kept the Discount Rate low all throughout the 50's boom and only sharply increased it once the NYSE was declining in the late 60's. Then they jacked it all through the age of stagflation and brought it back down throughout the Reagan boom.

Everything they do goes against basically every well-established economic theory. I can't think of any economist who believes that we should contract the money supply when things are bad and expand it when irrational exhuberance takes hold. And yet that's exactly what our central bank does.

[ Image (//http://www.frbsf.org/education/files/drecon_0208a.gif) ]

[ Image (//http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2-18-11-Market-Cap-1.gif) ]

Compare

(//http://www.frbsf.org/education/files/drecon_0208a.gif)

to historical inflation rate (Link: http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates ... tates.aspx (http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/united-states/historic-inflation/cpi-inflation-united-states.aspx))

(//http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/josephpalazzo/infl-chart-3-1-4.jpg) (//http://s243.photobucket.com/user/josephpalazzo/media/infl-chart-3-1-4.jpg.html)

There is a correlation between the Fed's discount rate and the inflation rate.

It's weaker, there are two peaks in the inflation rate but not for the discount rate, while the secular rises and falls are very inversely correlated between the discount rate and the NYSE. You have an easing of credit throughout boom periods and the tightening of credit all through bust periods.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"It's weaker, there are two peaks in the inflation rate but not for the discount rate, while the secular rises and falls are very inversely correlated between the discount rate and the NYSE.

Learn to read a graph. Look at the peaks from 71-75, and from 77-83. That's anything but weak. Again, stock exchanges are not good economic indicator. How hard is that to understand?

For your education: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall ... indicator/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/28/despite-warren-buffett-market-cap-to-gdp-is-not-a-good-indicator/)

Quote from: "zarus tathra"The issue here isn't whether or not the currency is "useful," the issue is whether or not the currency is by its very nature forced to correspond to physical and social realities, which a fiat currency is not.

No currency is, ultimately, for currency is, by its very nature, a representation of value and as such has no physical reality. In a way, all currency is fiat. Even the earliest coins were based on some sort of trust: that the king's stamp was an assurance of the purity of the metal.

Every currency can be faked, I know. But when you promise to redeem it for a metal that's in short supply, then that becomes a lot harder. It becomes even harder when redemption is expected to be near-instantaneous and unending.

A currency's value is not in its base. I know that the US dollar is fiat. I still use it, because I can buy stuff with it. Really, that's all that is needed.

Will you always be able to buy the same amount of stuff with it? Are the Feds able to invisibly make money with which to finance their bullshit?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Will you always be able to buy the same amount of stuff with it?

Inflation has many causes, not just with currency. Sure, you can have rising prices when you print more currency than is appropriate, but you can have rising prices when the commodity itself is rarer or harder to produce or cannot keep up with demand — like what's happening to oil.

Just about every industry on the planet touches the petroleum industry in some way and demand keeps rising, yet the only recoverable oil reserves that keep getting discovered are all oil sands and similar hard-to-recover deposits that will take much energy just to be able to process into a usable form. Anyone with brains can see the writing on the wall: things are going to get more expensive, and your choice of currency will not matter one wit.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Are the Feds able to invisibly make money with which to finance their bullshit?

Have they? The only thing they've done so far is to take on more debt, which has fuck-all to do with currency.

Sure, things cost more over time due to resource depletion. People do not manipulate currency to "lower costs," they do it to hide costs and shift them to other people without their knowledge or consent. Not only does this allocate costs unfairly, it also horribly obfuscates the problem of efficiently planning industry and capital. Which ends up increasing costs for everybody except for the currency manipulators and their favored groups.

QuoteHave they? The only thing they've done so far is to take on more debt, which has fuck-all to do with currency.

are you fucking retarded (//http://www.sott.net/article/250592-Audit-of-the-Federal-Reserve-Reveals-16-Trillion-in-Secret-Bailouts)

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteHave they? The only thing they've done so far is to take on more debt, which has fuck-all to do with currency.

are you fucking retarded (//http://www.sott.net/article/250592-Audit-of-the-Federal-Reserve-Reveals-16-Trillion-in-Secret-Bailouts)

 You're the one is who is fucking retarded. The FED bought $16T of assets from banks so they could start lending and prevent the financial crisis, which was in full swing in 2008, to get even worse than it had already reached. Had the Fed not acted, the unemployment rate would gone through the roof instead of climbing to 10% and then slowly gone down to the 7% as of today. Just a reminder: during the great Depression of 1929-45, the unemployment rate went over 25%.

(//http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/josephpalazzo/USunemploymentrateGD.png) (//http://s243.photobucket.com/user/josephpalazzo/media/USunemploymentrateGD.png.html)

Joule currency would fall on its face due to the what it would be based on which after reading this thread has never been truly established from the start of the OP, well at least what I can see (point it out if it has). Can you please explain what your  joule "hard currency" is that you are referring to? I wouldn't mind entering this conversation but I need specific tangible things that governments can't simply strip from the common wealth that you would want to back this banking system with.

The energy/power system would be based on joulebucks and wattbucks and energy shares.

Joulebucks would be based on energy. You get a database entry like a bank account and you'd be able to claim a certain amount of energy based on how many joulebucks you have, how much energy is lost getting it to your plug, the level of grid use, and probably some other factors which will probably be much smaller. Obviously, since I don't have real plans yet, the details have to be worked out. Maybe I'll have joulebucks degrade over time, like negative interest on Swiss bank accounts. Exponential increases in dollar assets can only really be supported by inflation and imperialism, a currency that is difficult to inflate would find great difficulty maintaining compound interest. This system wouldn't make any pretenses about being able to sustain something that's unsustainable.

Wattbucks would be base on how much power you can draw at any time. Joules are like liters of water, watts are like liters of water/sec through a pipe. These would probably degrade over time, too, since it's kind of insane to have a permanent claim on a nation's industrial output. You might be able to generate a corresponding, probably inferior # of joulebucks, but this convertibility is not as important as guaranteeing up-to-the-minute access.

Energy shares would be shares of the power capacity that has yet to be allocated to joulebuck and wattbuck users. If few people are using energy except the energy share people, like in a depression, then they get to stimulate the economy and use the unused surplus. Since this is the most generous of the systems, these people would eat last and would get the lowest priority. These shares would probably degrade over time. Or if they're given low priority, maybe degradation is unnecessary.

We already have an an intangible system in place and your system is nothing more than that. You need to have something tangible, not intangible.

An intangible system, such as what energy is, as to what you are referring is way easier to manipulate than what we have in the current system.

I am holding out my hand please put what ever you are selling in it, so I can touch, look, hold and have something real.

QuoteAn intangible system, such as what energy is, as to what you are referring is way easier to manipulate than what we have in the current system.

I guess all those coal and uranium mines and power lines are there for show, huh.

It's not "intangible." It's actually the most necessary element of our current system. The paper bills you have are useful only as a medium of exchange. The same is true even of gold. Energy, though, energy is needed for everything. What's more, energy is measurable.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteAn intangible system, such as what energy is, as to what you are referring is way easier to manipulate than what we have in the current system.

I guess all those coal and uranium mines and power lines are there for show, huh.

It's not "intangible." It's actually the most necessary element of our current system. The paper bills you have are useful only as a medium of exchange. The same is true even of gold. Energy, though, energy is needed for everything. What's more, energy is measurable.

Yes, I would like to withdraw a 2 1/2 train cars of coal and three 2 ton uranium rocks. This is unrealistic and you would still have to go by the markets manipulation of what it is worth, hmmm, just like we currently do...

You do realize that the energy market that you refer to is all ready part of the world economy, right?

The energy that you want to measure is intangible, once again it is far from something that you can call tangible. This is already a measured value of currency.

You can measure joules/volts coming from a wall plug. You can see whether the lights are on and whether your appliances are getting the energy they need. You can tell whether or not your joulebucks are getting the face value.

And joules are intangible? Joules are abstract? Try saying that to a physicist, or anybody who knows jack shit about science. It's "value" that's intangible. Energy expenditure, though, that's real. That's measurable and material.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"You can measure joules/volts coming from a wall plug. You can see whether the lights are on and whether your appliances are getting the energy they need. You can tell whether or not your joulebucks are getting the face value.

And joules are intangible? Joules are abstract? Try saying that to a physicist, or anybody who knows jack shit about science. It's "value" that's intangible. Energy expenditure, though, that's real. That's measurable and material.

Are you seriously telling me that I can put electricity in my pocket? NO, you are saying that you want to back, say the "dollar," with it and call it something different. You can already buy this commodity on the market world wide.

Yes, joulebucks are intangible. The point is that you'll know if your currency's getting debased IMMEDIATELY rather over the course of months or even years as the government floods the economy with bullshit just like you're doing now.

Do you seriously not understand that electricity is material? Do you not know what electrons are? I could plug my hands into a socket and get killed by maybe .05 cents of electricity. But increment a quantity in a banking database all you want, and nothing will happen to me if someone does not act on it.

And yes, you can buy electricity on the world market with dollars. Except the value you get is always going down. And down. And down. Our economics and politics is designed to hide this fact from you.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Yes, joulebucks are intangible. The point is that you'll know if your currency's getting debased IMMEDIATELY rather over the course of months or even years as the government floods the economy.

And yes, you can buy electricity on the world market with dollars. Except the value you get is always going down. And down. And down. Our economics and politics is designed to hide this fact from you.

So, your proposal will change all this I doubt it very much. You want to redo the world market with what a sliver of what it entails as of right now. Renaming something doesn't change the system you refer to it will still work out in the wash as either a credit or a debit in the end. I can take my credits right now and turn them into cash, you just want to call them a different name but in the end it is still currency. On top of that you want to tap into a market, by the way is already available to you to buy into world wide, and bace it off of that alone. The communications market which is what it actually falls under is already been so heavily manipulated in the past you think if we base our whole economy off that principle that it would some how be a better plan? Please explain, because this seems like you may be misinterpreting the world commerce that we already have. It is called economics.

Look at Enron that worked out in real time didn't it? Fuck no it didn't.

QuoteSo, your proposal will change all this I doubt it very much. You want to redo the world market with what a sliver of what it entails as of right now. Renaming something doesn't change the system you refer to it will still work out in the wash as either a credit or a debit in the end. I can take my credits right now and turn them into cash, you just want to call them a different name but in the end it is still currency.

A currency with hard limits on how much it can grow, much harder than a gold standard. A gold standard might rarely if ever get turned into metal, while people are constantly buying and using electricity.

QuoteOn top of that you want to tap into a market, by the way is already available to you to buy into world wide, and bace it off of that alone.

Everything uses electricity. It only makes sense to quantify economic costs in large part in terms of its electricity cost rather than in terms of this unknown quantity known as "value" or "desire."

QuoteThe communications market which is what it actually falls under is already been so heavily manipulated in the past you think if we base our whole economy off that principle that it would some how be a better plan?

What?

So, once again....
Gold is something tangible.
Electricity is something that is intangible.

You can currently buy into either one in almost any market in the world.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteThe communications market which is what it actually falls under is already been so heavily manipulated in the past you think if we base our whole economy off that principle that it would some how be a better plan?

What?

Look at Enron that worked out in real time didn't it? Fuck no it didn't.

QuoteGold is something tangible.

I guess I was imprecise in using "tangible" as the word. "Necessary to industry" or "correlated with physical cost" are better terms. But I think you've done everything you can to exploit any ambiguity of language and obfuscate as much as possible, so the fault is like 10% on my plate.

QuoteElectricity is something that is intangible.

Then go ahead and plug your hand into a wall socket. Don't worry, it's intangible!

QuoteYou can currently buy into either one in almost any market in the world.

And the price you get will not make any sense until it's too late. That's what happens when you quantify everything in terms of an abstract idea of "value" and not in terms of its energy cost.

QuoteLook at Enron that worked out in real time didn't it? Fuck no it didn't.

I really don't understand you. Please make your idea more precise.

In the current price system, people don't expect to get x joules for x dollars. They don't think in those terms, and that's why Enron could fuck with people, because people didn't have strong expectations regarding the token value of electricity. In a joulebuck system, that expectation would be constant and unrelenting. In fact, that expectation would be the bedrock of the economy.

excuse me, I thought you understood accounting for something. In accounting you have to account for your tangible and intangible items. But what value it holds today may not tommorrow, you can not do real time like you think you can.

For Example: I am a Harley Davidson and I have what is called "goodwill" in meaning that just the name has value that has to be accounted for as an asset to the company. This is intangible.

I am Harley Davidson and I hold certain inventories from raw material to finished products. This is an asset and also has value that needs to be accounted for also. This is tangible.

What either one of these has as value is debatable at any given time of what the actual value is. Tomorrow both could loose value and you wouldn't know it until it is to late.

Your plan is to take out the worlds economy and replace it with the fart & wind program...

QuoteYour plan is to take out the worlds economy and replace it with the fart program...

I think we're done here.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteYour plan is to take out the worlds economy and replace it with the fart program...

I think we're done here.

Why? You are the one that will not explain how you supposed plan would work. Like I keep saying it is already part of the world's economy. The way you would like to account for things is not how an accountant may account for things that is even legal. Sorry for getting cynical but really, you are not even close to understanding economics with your plan, it is way more complex than what you are making it out to be.

QuoteWhy? You are the one that will not explain how you supposed plan would work. Like I keep saying it is already part of the world's economy. The way you would like to account for things is not how an accountant may account for things that is even legal.

I've explained (approximately) how my plan would work. I've explained that the difficulty of inflating the currency would arise from the inherent measurability of energy usage and the instantaneous nature of the Joulebuck's redemption.

QuoteLike I keep saying it is already part of the world's economy.

And people allow the price of energy to rise constantly because they don't view it as the bedrock. Which enables currency debasement and the obfuscation of costs, including the cost of waging war.

QuoteThe way you would like to account for things is not how an accountant may account for things that is even legal.

I don't care.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteWhy? You are the one that will not explain how you supposed plan would work. Like I keep saying it is already part of the world's economy. The way you would like to account for things is not how an accountant may account for things that is even legal.

I've explained (approximately) how my plan would work. I've explained that the difficulty of inflating the currency would arise from the inherent measurability of energy usage and the instantaneous nature of the Joulebuck's redemption.

QuoteLike I keep saying it is already part of the world's economy.

And people allow the price of energy to rise constantly because they don't view it as the bedrock. Which enables currency debasement and the obfuscation of costs, including the cost of waging war.

QuoteThe way you would like to account for things is not how an accountant may account for things that is even legal.

I don't care.

They way you explain it can not work, why? Because am am not certain you have the understanding of exactly how electricity is generated. This can fluctuate to extremely to base a currency off of. Same thing can be said about the oil market.

Again, you may put all your credits into communication commodities in the world wide market. Some people don't want big risks of the betting of the long and shorts of it.

Being that you don't care about ethics in accounting practices shows that your plan is a manipulation from the ground up. You can not build economics off of a foundation that has zero ethics, which is how you would have to actually account for anything that you are trying to put value on, whether it is a "dollar' or a "Joulebuck."

QuoteThey way you explain it can not work, why? Because am am not certain you have the understanding of exactly how electricity is generated. This can fluctuate to extremely to base a currency off of. Same thing can be said about the oil market.

So they won't print out so many joulebucks that people will overload the grid. That's all that matters in the end, making sure that people get the energy they pay for and that the grid isn't overloaded and that people get enough output to be contented.

QuoteAgain, you may put all your credits into communication commodities in the world wide market. Some people don't want big risks of the betting of the long and shorts of it.

This whole system will hinge on whether or not the power company keeps the grid going, I agree. But so far they seem to be doing a good job of it. If things become worse and electricity becomes scarce, then energy accounting would become even more vital.

QuoteBeing that you don't care about ethics in accounting practices shows that your plan is a manipulation from the ground up.

Define "ethics in accounting practices," at least in this context. We're keeping a very strict system by which people have x number of joulebucks which can be redeemed for a hard minimum amount of electricity. That's a lot simpler and more transparent than current accounting practices.

You only want to account for the energy sold, which is not even remotely close to being real time. What they make and what actually gets consumed are two very different things. Approx. 50% of all electricity is lost before delivery so you can not go by what is being pumped out of the electric companies generators. The only way that it can be measured is walking up to the electric meters and verifying the watt hours used. Not sure how it works in your neck of the woods but that is monthly, so right there it is already a month off of real time.

Like Enron and other communication companies they can easily manipulate the grid and that could take months or years to catch on to, even with current regulations in place. You also have the oil companies and all their shenanigans that they still use to manipulate severely but currently are still not being addressed. You think that you would be able to tap into a market place like that and have what they are going to value what you have in your pocket? Besides how you going to strip that away from them, this does not exclude oil rich countries that do not like you and me. I can go on but I will assume that you understand the nature of what I am saying, or should at the least.

Explain once again, how you would like to account for it? What accounting system is that anyways? I have a coupon for 50 cents off of a box of cheerios? Is that an asset or liability? Is that tangible or intangible, if it is tangible is it ever intangible or vice-versa? As a stated you may not account for the things they way in which you are thinking you may.

QuoteYou only want to account for the energy sold, which is not even remotely close to being real time. What they make and what actually gets consumed are two very different things. Approx. 50% of all electricity is lost before delivery so you can not go by what is being pumped out of the electric companies generators. The only way that it can be measured is walking up to the electric meters and verifying the watt hours used. Not sure how it works in your neck of the woods but that is monthly, so right there it is already a month off of real time.

That'll need to be estimated and agreed on, sure. We'll need a whole system to track discrepancies in prices, but that's just a Google Earth overlay at this point.

This is just an estimate. I agree. But everything's an estimate. And at least in this case, we'll be estimating something that actually exists.

These estimates are already in place, this is how they sell us energy already, worldwide.

I do not think anyone in their right mind would ever base an economy off of google maps to track dependencies. Also, that could take years to audit and that would be even further out of the any realm of real time.

If users can agree on how much the "grid charge" from generator to plug will be, and if you can measure plug energy, then I don't see the problem.

Plus, there are already prototypes of internetworked systems for tracking energy usage. Ever hear of the "smart grid?"

Quote from: "zarus tathra"If you agree on how much the "grid charge" from generator to plug will be, and if you can measure plug energy, then I don't see the problem.

If you pull your last month's electric bill out and look at it they already do this.

also here's a missed post,

Quote from: "barbarian"You only want to account for the energy sold, which is not even remotely close to being real time. What they make and what actually gets consumed are two very different things. Approx. 50% of all electricity is lost before delivery so you can not go by what is being pumped out of the electric companies generators. The only way that it can be measured is walking up to the electric meters and verifying the watt hours used. Not sure how it works in your neck of the woods but that is monthly, so right there it is already a month off of real time.

Like Enron and other communication companies they can easily manipulate the grid and that could take months or years to catch on to, even with current regulations in place. You also have the oil companies and all their shenanigans that they still use to manipulate severely but currently are still not being addressed. You think that you would be able to tap into a market place like that and have what they are going to value what you have in your pocket? Besides how you going to strip that away from them, this does not exclude oil rich countries that do not like you and me. I can go on but I will assume that you understand the nature of what I am saying, or should at the least.

Explain once again, how you would like to account for it? What accounting system is that anyways? I have a coupon for 50 cents off of a box of cheerios? Is that an asset or liability? Is that tangible or intangible, if it is tangible is it ever intangible or vice-versa? As a stated you may not account for the things they way in which you are thinking you may.

QuoteIf you pull your last month's electric bill out and look at it they already do this.

I guess the really important aspect is that people should expect a minimum quantity of joules for their buck. This used to be done with the gold standard, and I think that this should be done with electricity. The way things are now, the amount of electricity you get for your money is degrading exponentially.

Plus, I already kind of answered your question about the loss over distance. It's probably a more complicated problem than what I portrayed it as, but I think we can both agree that it's not intractable with the use of computer technology.

Energy prices have skyrocketed since 2000. The graph below is adjusted for inflation. Now imagine it WITH inflation.

(//https://motherjones.com/files/images/us_electricity_prices_1970-2008.png)

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteIf you pull your last month's electric bill out and look at it they already do this.

I guess the really important aspect is that people should expect a minimum value of joules for their buck. This used to be done with the gold standard, and I think that this should be done with electricity. The way things are now, the amount of electricity you get for your money is degrading exponentially.

Plus, I already kind of answered your question about the loss over distance. It's probably a more complicated problem than what I portrayed it as, but I think we can both agree that it's not intractable with the use of computer technology.

At least with gold you always had the option to buy a tangible asset and hold on to it until the value went up again, also gold is way more of a stable market than a commodity like electricity. Could you imagine if OPEC decide to stop or slowed pumping oil until they got the market where they wanted to start pumping at a faster rate again? You do realize that electricity is still produced in many areas of the U.S. and world using petroleum products? This would be very bad and for any type of economy to based off of for their currency. Have you ever heard of the gas lines of the seventies and what that did to our currency back then? If not let me give you a tip, it was one of the worst inflationary times in current history that people still living remember. 2008's little stock market glitch sent our economy into a tail spin, did you see what happen to oil prices compared to gold according to the stock market?

Step aside from computer technologies to be the watch dog as they can be manipulated and it could even have even bigger adverse financial liabilities than what you see today as you are putting all your eggs in one basket. This is why I keep saying that electric can only be one part of the global market and rightfully so. Economics pivot off way more than one thing and as the market gets integrated more and more world wide you can not separate much that is already part of it so one thing can not manipulate the market in an almighty way. Also our market is what we call a fractional system market whether it is based off of a gold standard or just our good word.

PS: every down cycle of your little graph had a side effect of inflation. That is where your dollar deflated in value and your system would not be immured to it in any fashion and in fact would by more susceptible to inflationary times.

QuoteCould you imagine if OPEC decide to stop or slowed pumping oil until they got the market where they wanted to start pumping at a faster rate again? You do realize that electricity is still produced in many areas of the U.S. and world using petroleum products? This would be very bad and for any type of economy to based off of for their currency. Have you ever heard of the gas lines of the seventies and what that did to our currency back then? If not let me give you a tip, it was one of the worst inflationary times in current history that people still living remember. 2008's little stock market glitch sent our economy into a tail spin, did you see what happen to oil prices compared to gold according to the stock market?

There's really no way around these problems if you don't solve the material problem, I agree. But you can't just paper over them.

QuoteStep aside from computer technologies to be the watch dog as they can be manipulated and it could even have even bigger adverse financial liabilities than what you see today as you are putting all your eggs in one basket. This is why I keep saying that electric can only be one part of the global market and rightfully so. Economics pivot off way more than one thing and as the market gets integrated more and more world wide you can not separate much that is already part of it so one thing can not manipulate the market in an almighty way. Also our market is what we call a fractional system market whether it is based off of a gold standard or just our good word.

It's not just computer technologies that are the "watchdog." You have physical meters NOW, and people could easily buy and use their own meters. Fraud would actually be more detectable than it is now. If you expect a certain amount of electricity and you aren't getting it, your own devices will tell you.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteCould you imagine if OPEC decide to stop or slowed pumping oil until they got the market where they wanted to start pumping at a faster rate again? You do realize that electricity is still produced in many areas of the U.S. and world using petroleum products? This would be very bad and for any type of economy to based off of for their currency. Have you ever heard of the gas lines of the seventies and what that did to our currency back then? If not let me give you a tip, it was one of the worst inflationary times in current history that people still living remember. 2008's little stock market glitch sent our economy into a tail spin, did you see what happen to oil prices compared to gold according to the stock market?

There's really no way around these problems if you don't solve the material problem, I agree. But you can't just paper over them.

QuoteStep aside from computer technologies to be the watch dog as they can be manipulated and it could even have even bigger adverse financial liabilities than what you see today as you are putting all your eggs in one basket. This is why I keep saying that electric can only be one part of the global market and rightfully so. Economics pivot off way more than one thing and as the market gets integrated more and more world wide you can not separate much that is already part of it so one thing can not manipulate the market in an almighty way. Also our market is what we call a fractional system market whether it is based off of a gold standard or just our good word.

It's not just computer technologies that are the "watchdog." You have physical meters NOW, and people could easily buy and use their own meters. Fraud would actually be more detectable than it is now.

What you want to go to is another paper system...

This is out of touch of reality. I can monitor my meter outside my house just fine. But to make a statement like this does not compute.

QuoteBut, but what you want to go to is a paper system...

A paper system with hardened obligations.

Again, this would be a paper system that would be far more easy to manipulate than then the current market that has everything within it. It is based off of one dynamic and like gold, which is way, way more stable we found that it didn't work either. The gold standard was eliminated in 1971 was to prevent economic collapse and we still seen gas lines by 1973 and was the biggest inflationary period in recent times. You are playing with fire to try and tie the economics of the dollar or what ever you want to call it, basically a credit in today's world is turning your back on history and it will repeat itself.

You already admitted that people can watch their own energy usage to make sure that they're getting the energy they paid for. If people are getting the energy they paid for, and if the joulebuck is constrained by a price ceiling that can be verified, then the system is working just fine. Right now, the USD is not constrained by anything except the threat of mass sell-offs of government debt, which may yet happen.

Go back and look at the the chart that you posted. You are reading the chart upside down. Where it shows the 1973 oil embargo that is not where the dollar was inflated. The Dollar was deflated over the next 7 years until it peaked at the top in 1980. through those 7 years energy was being sold for more than what are dollar was worth. When Ronald Reagan took Social Security and put it in the general fund and borrowed money from it then stopped inflation. Over the next 20 years you can see how the dollar was curved to value and not inflated. Do you see where the 911 attacks happened? Once again were bottomed out on the value of the dollar and inflation started all over again. This also coincides with wages being stagnated for the past 10+ years. Now if you are paying attention to your own currency it does not do anything differently than the dollar does in current times. The cost of essentials rises and the value of the dollar drops. If you take your system and to your example from the graph that you posted it would be a tragedy to base currency off of electricity as it already has a history of the way the dollar responds in our current market trends. I will say it once again, the notion that basing our monetary system off of something that trends like this is no different than going back to the gold standard, which would be far more stable being that you have it being backed by something that is actually tangible.

Define "tangible." Then we can talk, because you seem to not understand what "tangible" means.

And if the money were based on something as difficult to fake as electricity, then all those inane, abstract manipulations would mean very, very little.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tangible (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tangible)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intangible (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intangible)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tangible (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tangible)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/intangible (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/intangible)


If you do not like the sources of definition I provided then go ahead and post the definition from your favorite online dictionary.

I can put a gold piece in my pocket.
I can not put kwh in my pocket.

Ssssssooo you're saying that electricity can't be touched? That it isn't made out electrons, which are a form of matter? Are you fucking serious?

Quote1.

capable of being touched; discernible by the touch; material or substantial.


2.

real or actual, rather than imaginary or visionary:

If you insist on continuing with this inane line of non-inquiry, then I suggest you stick your fingers in an electrical socket and test out your theory that electricity is intangible.

Yes I am saying I can not put a khw in my pocket unless you know something I don't.

Okay since you apparently can't read dictionaries I think we're done.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Okay since you apparently can't read dictionaries I think we're done.

You are the one that can not read dictionaries you say that it is based of of energy consumption in the form of a kwh and put that in your pocket which you can not. You even stressed how you can monitor the consumption of these khw but now you won't tell me how I can put them in my pocket like a gold piece? Can I please carry a khw around please explain how this is possible?

I thought that you had it all figured out.


 :rollin:  :rollin:  :rollin:  :rollin:  :rollin:  :rollin:  :rollin:

QuoteIf you insist on continuing with this inane line of non-inquiry, then I suggest you stick your fingers in an electrical socket and test out your theory that electricity is intangible.

This page:
Share:

   
in·tan·gi·ble  (n-tnj-bl)
adj.
1. Incapable of being perceived by the senses.
2. Incapable of being realized or defined.
3. Incorporeal.
n.
1. Something intangible, especially an asset that cannot be perceived by the senses. Often used in the plural: intangibles such as goodwill and dedication.
2. Law Incorporeal property such as bank deposits, stocks, bonds, and promissory notes. Often used in the plural: a state tax on intangibles.


in·tan·gi·ble  (n-tnj-bl)
adj.
1. Incapable of being perceived by the senses.
2. Incapable of being realized or defined.
3. Incorporeal.
n.
1. Something intangible, especially an asset that cannot be perceived by the senses. Often used in the plural: intangibles such as goodwill and dedication.
2. Law Incorporeal property such as bank deposits, stocks, bonds, and promissory notes. Often used in the plural: a state tax on intangibles.

corporeal (k???p??r??l)
adj
1. (Theology) of the nature of the physical body; not spiritual
2. of a material nature; physical
[C17: from Latin corporeus, from corpus body]
cor?pore?ality cor?porealness n cor?poreally adv

cor·po·re·al  (kôr-pôr-l, -pr-)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of the body. See Synonyms at bodily.
2. Of a material nature; tangible.

Electricity can be assigned monetary value.

Electricity and energy in general can certainly be perceived.

Etc. etc. etc.

Do you even read?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Electricity can be assigned monetary value.

Electricity and energy in general can certainly be perceived.

Etc. etc. etc.

Do you even read?

IT IS STILL CONSIDERED INCORPOREAL

in·cor·po·re·al  (nkôr-pôr-l, -pr-)
adj.
1. Lacking material form or substance. See Synonyms at immaterial.
2. Law Of or relating to property or an asset that does not have value in material form, as a right or patent.

I don't give a fuck. You can touch it, it has industrial value, and if they wanted to, someone could easily kill you with it.

Yeah you think that your big hair brained scheme of some monetary system could actually work, now that it has been deflated you will take your little word smith hammer out and bend the conversation like your some type of fucking genesis, well fuck that. You don't understand basic accounting principles nor the economics at a world wide level of commerce. You have deflected what ever you felt like in past posts as we discussed this. Now you are done, good one.  :rollin:

If it makes you feel better your plan is the best solution to war since the a-bomb...

By the way I carry 2 kwh around in my pocket in case the lint doesn't cover whatever I want to by. Your system comes down to less that what we have today to measure the value of the dollar, you can call it a turd if you would like the system you describe still comes down to a paper system, which by the way the paper system we use today has been slowly degraded over time to a credit/debit society. Which you will never even get the grasp of when someone is trying to explain shit to you like I have with great patience. Now you say I can not read, what the fuck is that shit? Look, I can not help that you thought up something that just could never work, but once you get hostile with me then I will not hold back as being rude also, and be a fucking asshole too.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"I don't give a fuck. You can touch it, it has industrial value, and if they wanted to, someone could easily kill you with it.

And lastly, you don't ever even insinuate that someone could kill me, you little fucking turd chomper.

It's a paper currency with expectations. I think I said that like 3 times.

But yeah, you're right, I'm done.

=D>

Stop the violins, visualize whirled peas and hominy.  :popcorn:

QuoteAnd lastly, you don't ever even insinuate that someone could kill me, you little fucking turd chomper.

You're right, electricity is intangible and nobody could ever kill you with it. You're like Thor or something. If someone walked up to you with a live cable and touched it to your neck, you would be fine. Electricity wouldn't go from the point of contact, through your heart, and into the ground, stopping your vital functions for good, because you can't touch or perceive electricity. Because electricity is intangible.

I will wait for this system with both eyes open, unless I get tired of waiting for something that would or will not happen then I may just take a nap :finga: .

Good luck with your idea...  :rollin:

And for your information you little word smith, electricity is immaterial which falls under the definition of intangible.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"The energy/power system would be based on joulebucks and wattbucks and energy shares.

Joulebucks would be based on energy. You get a database entry like a bank account and you'd be able to claim a certain amount of energy based on how many joulebucks you have, how much energy is lost getting it to your plug, the level of grid use, and probably some other factors which will probably be much smaller. Obviously, since I don't have real plans yet, the details have to be worked out.

As they say, the devil is in the details. It is precisely because you haven't worked out these details, and every time you try you have come up wanting, is the reason why we call your "system" bullshit. It's not a system or even a plan. It's just a notion. To suppose that one simple change, like basing your currency on the joule or watt or whatever, will solve the complex economic problems facing us right now is manifestly ludicrous, and is a symptom of magical thinking.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Maybe I'll have joulebucks degrade over time, like negative interest on Swiss bank accounts. Exponential increases in dollar assets can only really be supported by inflation and imperialism,

Or investing, dumbass.

Your negative interest will discourage saving, and encourage the rapid transformation of your currency into goods as soon as possible, which is exactly the problem with hyperinflation.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"a currency that is difficult to inflate would find great difficulty maintaining compound interest.

Inflation is not a function of the currency in isolation, or even of currency at all. It is a function of treating money as a commodity in and of itself — which it is. Inflation and deflation comes from balancing money and its pros and cons against all the other commodities and their pros and cons. Thus, talking about "a currency that is difficult to inflate" just shows you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

And it's hard to take seriously any talk of "a currency that is difficult to inflate" when it experiences negative interest. A given store of your currency would become less valuable over time because of that negative interest, and thus make that store less valuable a commodity over time, which is exactly what happens in inflation, and will be treated the same way as an inflating currency.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"This system wouldn't make any pretenses about being able to sustain something that's unsustainable.

You have not shown that a fiat currency is any more unsustainable than a based system like your joulebucks, or that an economy is unsustainable in principle, except by way of the heat death of the universe.

I've rethought things a bit and I think that until a detailed, mathematical model can be created, the best we can do is to peg the USD to the retail price of energy, i.e. control the supply of currency so that the mean nominal price of energy never rises above a certain point. A full-on energy credit system would require much bigger minds than ours. I don't think people will find it too objectionable to insist that energy prices stay below a fixed nominal value, and no government could do this and run the printing press at the same time.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"I don't think people will find it too objectionable to insist that energy prices stay below a fixed nominal value, and no government could do this and run the printing press at the same time.

You never explained this statement to anyone's satisfaction.

If the government is expected to constrain the supply of money in such a way that energy prices never rise above a certain point, then that's a hard control on inflation right there. It also more or less fulfills my original purpose, which is to precisely measure inflation so that it becomes difficult for the feds to paper over their mistakes. It's better than a gold standard, because you can delay and delay and delay the return of somebody's gold and lie about your reserves all you want, but if there isn't enough electricity to justify the money supply/level of economic activity, then everybody will know once they get the next electricity bill. The supply of electricity and the efficiency of usage are also much better indicators of productivity and industrial capacity than the gold supply.

And actually, if the money supply were pegged to the energy supply, there'd be a LOT less fluctuation of nominal prices. The money supply would contract by like 30% instead of expanding by like 500%. The "sacrifices" Carter asked for would be quantified.

If you'll notice, the "boom" and "bust" periods correspond perfectly to rises and falls in the "real" price of energy. Food for thought.

(//http://www.emeraldinsight.com/content_images/fig/4210700201001.png)

Quote from: "zarus tathra"If the government is expected to constrain the supply of money in such a way that energy prices never rise above a certain point, then that's a hard control on inflation right there.

You forget that, while the currency may not inflate with respect to electricity, at least on paper, other goods are free to vary with respect to electricity. So, no. No "hard control on inflation."

Why did I say, "at least on paper?" Because the practical value of a joulebuck will always vary with respect to the electricity its based on. Purchasing, after all, is based on differences in value. A merchant sells a doohicky for 50¢ because to him, the doohicky is worth less than 50¢, and a customer buys that same doohicky for 50¢ because to him, the doohicky is worth more than 50¢. Same exact doohicky, two different worths.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"It also more or less fulfills my original purpose, which is to precisely measure inflation so that it becomes difficult for the feds to paper over their mistakes.

Once again, the mistake here is thinking that inflation is a function of only the currency.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"It's better than a gold standard, because you can delay and delay and delay the return of somebody's gold and lie about your reserves all you want,

I'm sure that it was written in law somewhere that the feds must deliver the promised gold within X days. At least, when they were doing that sort of thing.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"but if there isn't enough electricity to justify the money supply/level of economic activity, then everybody will know once they get the next electricity bill.

Nonsense. The average joe would pay their electrical bills using their credit card or bank account, which does not intersect in any way with currency, so the average joe would not notice anything amiss. Or are you still maintaining this false equivalence between currency and money?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"The supply of electricity and the efficiency of usage are also much better indicators of productivity and industrial capacity than the gold supply.

I don't believe anyone has ever used the gold supply as indicators of productivity. They would instead measure the quantity of goods... well, produced.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"And actually, if the money supply were pegged to the energy supply, there'd be a LOT less fluctuation of nominal prices. The money supply would contract by like 30% instead of expanding by like 500%. The "sacrifices" Carter asked for would be quantified.

Now that's an assertion without proof.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"If you'll notice, the "boom" and "bust" periods correspond perfectly to rises and falls in the "real" price of energy. Food for thought.

[ Image (//http://www.emeraldinsight.com/content_images/fig/4210700201001.png) ]

You must be joking. "Perfectly"? Are we looking at the same graph? This correlation is weak at best.

Inflation-adjusted price of electricity is falling all throughout the "boom periods" and stagnant or rising through the "depressions." So actually, the correlation is as real as  anything gets in finance.

QuoteOnce again, the mistake here is thinking that inflation is a function of only the currency.

Yes, it's also a function of how often money is changing hands. When there is a deficiency of energy growth, then economic activity should slow down in order to adjust. This illusory Potemkin Village bullshit is killing us as a country.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Inflation-adjusted price of electricity is falling all throughout the "boom periods" and stagnant or rising through the "depressions." So actually, the correlation is as real as  anything gets in finance.

Then how come the graphs cross? At best your correlation is poor. There are many factors that would suffer in a downturned economy, and the energy sector is one of them.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteOnce again, the mistake here is thinking that inflation is a function of only the currency.

Yes, it's also a function of how often money is changing hands. When there is a deficiency of energy growth, then economic activity should slow down in order to adjust. This illusory Potemkin Village bullshit is killing us as a country.

So when we have a deficiency in energy growth, your solution is to slow down the very activity that would build the energy sector to acceptable levels? You do know that an infrastructure does not build itself, right? It takes money and the serious commitment of resources to build infrastructure. If anything, that is what's killing us — the spending of our resources for prestige projects instead of building the invisible support structure that makes it all work.

That last pic is nominal price vs inflation-adjusted, dumbass. If you had a NYSE/S&P 500 graph right next to the inflation-adjusted price, you'd have one going up while the other goes down, and vice versa.

Correlation is not causation, even if what you said was true. It could easily be the opposite: that a reduction of economic activity cause the nominal price of electricity to go up, because the same facilities must be maintained for the increased output that is underutilized.

What? Why would a slowdown in economic activity (and a reduction in demand) cause kwh prices to rise? Why would an increase in activity cause nominal prices to fall? You're just being a troll.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"What? Why would a slowdown in economic activity (and a reduction in demand) cause kwh prices to rise? Why would an increase in activity cause nominal prices to fall?

Because you have to generate electrical power in proportion to the amount of energy that might be used, not the portion of energy that is used. The rest is wasted. Electrical power is not like coal that can sit around in a hopper for a while until you actually use it, it has to be used in the moment it is created. So the power company has to pay for the fuel that it uses, but cannot charge for kwh that were not actually used by the end user, so the prices have to rise for each kwh to pay for it.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"You're just being a troll.

Pot, kettle, black, because I look at your graph and notice that what you have put up is the nominal price of electricity vs the real price of electricity. As such, it doesn't show anything at all.

QuoteBecause you have to generate electrical power in proportion to the amount of energy that might be used, not the portion of energy that is used. The rest is wasted. Electrical power is not like coal that can sit around in a hopper for a while until you actually use it, it has to be used in the moment it is created. So the power company has to pay for the fuel that it uses, but cannot charge for kwh that were not actually used by the end user, so the prices have to rise for each kwh to pay for it.

That would be the case if the free market were one ginormous charity, which it isn't. It sounds like the opposite of supply and demand. Also, 1968-1979 were years containing the Vietnam War when it was at its worst. How would mobilizing for endless war decrease demand for electricity?

edit: dumbass (//https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf200up/node/151).

QuoteIn reality, the market for electrical energy, which I will simply refer to as the market for power from here on, is perhaps the closest to a textbook example of a supply and demand diagram as we will see in any market. That is, the supply curves and demand curves are very much observable, and the intersection of the two, which sets the price, is not a result of trial-and-error and bargaining between consumer and seller, but is, in fact, the result of a complicated mathematical operation based upon costs and demand curves that are specified in rather exacting detail by the suppliers and demanders.

So much for that theory.

QuotePot, kettle, black, because I look at your graph and notice that what you have put up is the nominal price of electricity vs the real price of electricity. As such, it doesn't show anything at all.

Ummm I wasn't pretending anything, I just kind of figured that the "boom" years and "bust" years were widely agreed on. I sometimes assume too much prior knowledge on the part of people I talk to, sorry.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteBecause you have to generate electrical power in proportion to the amount of energy that might be used, not the portion of energy that is used. The rest is wasted. Electrical power is not like coal that can sit around in a hopper for a while until you actually use it, it has to be used in the moment it is created. So the power company has to pay for the fuel that it uses, but cannot charge for kwh that were not actually used by the end user, so the prices have to rise for each kwh to pay for it.

That would be the case if the free market were one ginormous charity, which it isn't. It sounds like the opposite of supply and demand. Also, 1968-1979 were years containing the Vietnam War when it was at its worst. How would mobilizing for endless war decrease demand for electricity?

If demand goes down like in a depression, the power plants already built won't simply disappear into thin air. They would need to be maintained, and fueled in case the demand comes back. The supply of electricity is pretty inelastic; it takes years of planning and construction to build a power plant, so if demand goes up and your power plants can't cope, then you have a shortage and price goes up. If demand goes way down, then to maintain backup supply you have to fuel and maintain the plants and that is a cost that you have to pay with some way, so you pay with it with increased cost per kwh sold. Dumbass.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"edit: dumbass (//https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf200up/node/151).

QuoteIn reality, the market for electrical energy, which I will simply refer to as the market for power from here on, is perhaps the closest to a textbook example of a supply and demand diagram as we will see in any market. That is, the supply curves and demand curves are very much observable, and the intersection of the two, which sets the price, is not a result of trial-and-error and bargaining between consumer and seller, but is, in fact, the result of a complicated mathematical operation based upon costs and demand curves that are specified in rather exacting detail by the suppliers and demanders.

So much for that theory.

Nothing here contradicts what I have said. Remember that when available supply is already pretty much in synch with demand, you can treat any fluctuation of supply and demand curve very simply in this manner. However, when the supply is way out of whack with the demand, this analysis breaks down. Unless you believe that increased demand will instantly result in power plants popping up out of nowhere, and decreased demand will cause those power plants to sink into the aether, the relationship between supply and demand will not be so simple in extreme cases.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Ummm I wasn't pretending anything, I just kind of figured that the "boom" years and "bust" years were widely agreed on. I sometimes assume too much prior knowledge on the part of people I talk to, sorry.

You would do best to put these kinds of things side by side. Nobody's an encyclopedia. Besides, a correlation is a mathematical relationship, and its best to have the numbers on your side.

I just don't know of any businesses that work anything like that.

And this link says that increased energy prices can easily be explained by increasing fuel costs (//http://www.epsa.org/industry/index.cfm?fa=mythsRealities), which, strangely enough, does nothing to contradict common sense.

QuoteElectricity rates have been rising throughout the country, not only in restructured states. These increases are largely a result of rising costs for the fuel used by generators to produce electricity. In fact, fossil fuel costs have increased over 150 percent since 1999. Fuel costs are rising due to global demand for fossil fuels, the impact of supply interruptions from the hurricanes in 2005, and insufficient domestic production. The push for cleaner, more reliable and efficient power plants drive costs higher as well. Despite this pressure, if one takes into account price increases over the same time-frame in other consumer goods like food, housing and health care, electricity price increases are mostly modest by comparison. In addition, wholesale prices actually declined last year in some regions.

Electricity rates are not rising because of the competition brought about in those states that restructured electricity. Many of the states that introduced retail competition incorporated rate freezes that kept rates unchanged for a period of years even as the input costs for generating electricity increased dramatically. These artificial price freezes are not sustainable in the face of these economic realities, particularly when they have been in effect for many years.

Make no mistake - retail customers in states that do not allow customer choice have experienced higher rates as well - often in the form of an automatic increase on their bill. In these states, steady increases over a number of years have been passed through to consumers. These regular, smaller price hikes can add up to dramatic changes in price over time. Recent reports by several state utility commissions document that prices in competitive markets are lower than what would have been the case in a rate-regulated environment had those states not restructured.

According to this book (//http://www.amazon.com/Prometheus-Shackled-Goldsmith-Financial-Revolution/dp/019994427X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1392656959&sr=8-4&keywords=bank+of+england) the Bank of England ended up crowding out private investment and lending by financing wars and other rash government projects. Britain's industrial revolution was proceeding quite nicely until they came along.

Whatever, zarus. I do not claim that governments can do no wrong. Citing where governments have done wrong will avail you not.

I'm not "citing where governments have gone wrong." I'm citing "government projects crowd out private investment and slow the rate of economic growth and constrain the supply of credit," which that book demonstrates by analzying ~100 years of bank records from the 1700's.

Remember Enron?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"I'm not "citing where governments have gone wrong." I'm citing "government projects crowd out private investment and slow the rate of economic growth and constrain the supply of credit," which that book demonstrates by analzying ~100 years of bank records from the 1700's.

And why is this necessarily a bad thing? Weren't you yourself saying a few pages back that unrestrained growth can't be sustained forever?

The feds do a lot more to subsidize growth than to restrain growth. They regularly sell trees and gold mining territory for a fraction of its market price. Plus, land grants, farm subsidies that encourage excessive destruction of habitat, etc.

And if you bet on a company like Enron, then you deserve to lose your investment.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"The feds do a lot more to subsidize growth than to restrain growth. They regularly sell trees and gold mining territory for a fraction of its market price. Plus, land grants, farm subsidies that encourage excessive destruction of habitat, etc.

The feds want to keep growth at a certain level. Not too much, and not too little. Because people tend to get pissy when they're unemployed because the economy is in a slump.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"And if you bet on a company like Enron, then you deserve to lose your investment.

Yes, hindsight is always 20/20.

I was actually referring to Enron's manipulation of energy prices in California, ZT, but I'm sure you already know all about that.

The system can't work if the people don't enforce capped energy prices. I admit that. This system would at least have the advantage of being transparent enough to make it obvious when the people are getting screwed by the system, i.e. plants getting taken offline/printing press is getting run.

In the case of Enron's manipulations, the manipulations were pretty obvious. They were buying plants and taking them offline, that's about as blatant as you can get.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"The system can't work if the people don't enforce capped energy prices. I admit that. This system would at least have the advantage of being transparent enough to make it obvious when the people are getting screwed by the system, i.e. plants getting taken offline/printing press is getting run.

But oh so many disadvantages, as been pointed out before. And the only advantage you have so far put forward is in truth the least consequential of them. You can't get screwed with a currency unless the promise it represents is reneged on. Thus, the value of a currency depends much more on the trust placed in it than even its base. Even our own fiat currency of a dollar has a promise — you can always use a dollar to erase one dollar in taxes owed, and to pay off any debt where its method of payment is not otherwise specified.

In the end, there's really no such thing as a non-fiat currency. A government really strapped for cash can renege on a hard currency promise just as easily as it can renege on a fiat currency one. In your case, those power plants can simply be repurposed for generating power to sell instead of backing the currency.

Yes, it's still a paper currency, just like the greenback and a gold standard. Difference is, you're ALWAYS spending money to buy electricity, while with a gold standard, you almost never spend money to buy gold. In fact, most people never do, and that's why the banks are able to screw people over on a gold standard. There are only runs on banks when there are wars and depressions, basically, after the printing presses had been run for years; at all other times, complacency is the default.

With a joule standard, no matter how complacent the population gets, they never stop buying electricity. So unlike a gold standard, there is ALWAYS a run on the bank. The only way that the bank run would ever STOP would be if all the machines, including household appliances, were to shut down, which won't happen. So there's no faking this standard the way there is with a gold standard. It'd be transparent, and nobody can argue that a little transparency in our monetary system wouldn't be FUCKING AWESOME.

And what are the downsides of this, again? Not being able to inflate your way out of a depression? Pfft, it's not like that actually works in the real world, anyway. I mean, even the New Deal didn't do shit to bring about an economic recovery, the economy didn't really start to grow until the early 1950's.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Yes, it's still a paper currency, just like the greenback and a gold standard. Difference is, you're ALWAYS spending money to buy electricity, while with a gold standard, you almost never spend money to buy gold. In fact, most people never do, and that's why the banks are able to screw people over on a gold standard. There are only runs on banks when there are wars and depressions, basically, after the printing presses had been run for years; at all other times, complacency is the default.

With a joule standard, no matter how complacent the population gets, they never stop buying electricity. So unlike a gold standard, there is ALWAYS a run on the bank.

You do know the difference between buying with currency and redeeming the currency, do you not? Actually, it seems that you don't. You can buy gold with a gold-backed currency, but that doesn't redeem it. The currency held by the gold seller is still fully-backed, and may be used to buy other goods. If citizens simply buy electricity with joulebucks, those joulebucks are still backed and may be used by the power company to do stuff like pay its workers and buy fuel. Sure, the power company could redeem the currency and then reissue it (if it were so authorized) but that's just stupid when you can just use the still-valid joulebucks to pay them, especially if redeeming the currency and reissuing them have additional administrative overhead, like tracking numbers and shit — and there always will be. Further, if the tracking numbers on a physical bill can't be reissued to that same physical bill (for whatever reason, like if the tracking number has been snatched up by another firm for reissue), you have to destroy and reprint the bill, which makes the practice doubly-stupid — paper and ink ain't free, ya know.

So, no. The fact that people will not stop buying electricity has fuck all to do with the backing of your joulebuck. As such, changing the basing of the currency would have no measurable effect on the use of the currency. There will be no perpetual "runs on the bank" for this currency because it will simply be used to buy that electricity instead of going through the administrative hassle of redeeming the currency then reissuing it almost immediately. Thus, you have exactly the same situation you have with the gold-backed currency — default complacency, with "runs on the bank" when trust in the currency is lost.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"And what are the downsides of this, again? Not being able to inflate your way out of a depression?

You have not proved that you will not be able to inflate your way out of a depression with the joulebuck. In fact, some of the solutions you propose would actually aggravate it, like your ridiculous "auto-deflation" scheme you mentioned a while back.

QuoteYou do know the difference between buying with currency and redeeming the currency, do you not?

Either way, you exchange paper for something else, the basics are the same and they're close enough for our purposes. A centralized distributor that you "redeem" from wouldn't be able to hold their prices very far above or below the market price for very long. I thnk you're overcomplicating things on purpose.

QuoteYou have not proved that you will not be able to inflate your way out of a depression with the joulebuck. In fact, some of the solutions you propose would actually aggravate it, like your ridiculous "auto-deflation" scheme you mentioned a while back.

Huh? Being able to inflate our way out of depression with the joulebuck would make it substantially BETTER than fiat currency.

sure

Sorry, how easy does the language have to be for you to get it?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteYou do know the difference between buying with currency and redeeming the currency, do you not?

Either way, you exchange paper for something else, the basics are the same and they're close enough for our purposes. A centralized distributor that you "redeem" from wouldn't be able to hold their prices very far above or below the market price for very long. I thnk you're overcomplicating things on purpose.

Yeah, backpedal some more, why don't you? You stated that because people will always need electricity, the joulebuck would always be tested. But here you admit that it is not — that it's being treated in exactly the same way as would a fiat currency. And here you admit that such a scheme of testing would require a central authority, which is what I stated way back here (//http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=985700#p985700) with all of its attendant problems.

You are still dodging the issue: you are not redeeming the bill, and as such, its value is still depends completely on trust, as with a fiat currency.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteYou have not proved that you will not be able to inflate your way out of a depression with the joulebuck. In fact, some of the solutions you propose would actually aggravate it, like your ridiculous "auto-deflation" scheme you mentioned a while back.

Huh? Being able to inflate our way out of depression with the joulebuck would make it substantially BETTER than fiat currency.

Now you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. First you imply that the joulebuck is not able to inflate and that's an advantage, and now you're saying that being able to inflate is an advantage? Which is it?

It's not "trust," you're buying electricity all the time, how is that trust?

If the power company prints too much money and tries to keep electricity prices from going over the limit, people are going to buy a lot more energy than there is in the system and the system will collapse. If you decrease the price, the people are going to buy more. And if you print too much money, then the natural price will rise too far. And if you lower the price below what should be the market price, then they will overburden the system and you create a shortage, which, unlike a bullion shortage, would be obvious instantly because electricity travels really, really fast and power outages kind of happen instantly.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"It's not "trust," you're buying electricity all the time, how is that trust?

Is the company you're buying the electricity from not trusting that the notes are genuine?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"If the power company prints too much money and tries to keep electricity prices from going over the limit, people are going to buy a lot more energy than there is in the system and the system will collapse.

Bullshit. You can only draw so much current before you blow out your fuse, and if you try to circumvent that with anything other than upgrading your electrical wiring, you'll set your house on fire.

Furthermore, normal power companies will not be printing money. They'll just be selling electricity. If they can't meet demand, you'll just have brownouts because —ya, know— they're not responsible for redeeming your currency, so they being tapped out has no bearing on the nominal value of the currency.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"If you decrease the price, the people are going to buy more.

Who says they'll be decreasing the price? If they're running a swindle (which is what your ridiculous testing scenario claims to prevent), the price isn't going to change, and neither will demand.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"And if you print too much money, then the natural price will rise too far. And if you lower the price below what should be the market price, then they will overburden the system and you create a shortage, which, unlike a bullion shortage, would be obvious instantly because electricity travels really, really fast and power outages kind of happen instantly.

The electricity may be able to travel that fast, but the currency does not. It has the speed of the fastest mail truck. And it must be delivered to the BOE/Treasury for redemption (and subsequent and verified destruction of the bill), and a means of returning the redeemed joules negotiated and sent back through the mail. Very few people are going to bother with that to get electrical power, rather than simply buying electricity on credit from a commercial power company, which —once again— does not redeem a single joulebuck in currency.

The only way you are going to get this continuous stress test of the currency is if you mandate it, and it will be a very, very, very hard sell.

QuoteIs the company you're buying the electricity from not trusting that the notes are genuine?

Yeah, but I thought that you were talking about the trust that ordinary consumers put in the system.

QuoteBullshit. You can only draw so much current before you blow out your fuse, and if you try to circumvent that with anything other than upgrading your electrical wiring, you'll set your house on fire.

Most of our electricity usage comes from industry, if people start buying too much stuff industry will start producing too much and using too much electricity.

QuoteFurthermore, normal power companies will not be printing money. They'll just be selling electricity. If they can't meet demand, you'll just have brownouts because —ya, know— they're not responsible for redeeming your currency, so they being tapped out has no bearing on the nominal value of the currency.

That's a sign that the system's printing too much money, and it's an instantaneous sign of system failure. That's exactly what I want.

QuoteThe electricity may be able to travel that fast, but the currency does not. It has the speed of the fastest mail truck. And it must be delivered to the BOE/Treasury for redemption (and subsequent and verified destruction of the bill), and a means of returning the redeemed joules negotiated and sent back through the mail. Very few people are going to bother with that to get electrical power, rather than simply buying electricity on credit from a commercial power company, which —once again— does not redeem a single joulebuck in currency.

If it were just a monthly or even yearly stress test, that would be orders of magnitude better than anything we've ever had.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteIs the company you're buying the electricity from not trusting that the notes are genuine?

Yeah, but I thought that you were talking about the trust that ordinary consumers put in the system.

Is the power company selling electricity not an ordinary customer for its own suppliers?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteBullshit. You can only draw so much current before you blow out your fuse, and if you try to circumvent that with anything other than upgrading your electrical wiring, you'll set your house on fire.

Most of our electricity usage comes from industry, if people start buying too much stuff industry will start producing too much and using too much electricity.

Not before new factories are built to draw that current, which will incite power companies to build more power plants to sell them that electricity. And they're not going to draw any more current than their machines are rated for, either, because they'll set their factories on fire.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteFurthermore, normal power companies will not be printing money. They'll just be selling electricity. If they can't meet demand, you'll just have brownouts because —ya, know— they're not responsible for redeeming your currency, so they being tapped out has no bearing on the nominal value of the currency.

That's a sign that the system's printing too much money, and it's an instantaneous sign of system failure. That's exactly what I want.

So if your local grocery store runs out of avocados, that means we're printing too much money? Because the exact same logic applies.

Once more, that commercial power company is NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR REDEEMING YOUR CURRENCY, and you have NO expectation that it will do that, and if you try to argue otherwise, they'll point you to their policy stating clearly that they do not redeem joulebucks and that all joulebucks are best redeemed by the Bureau of Engraving.

Stop shipping this argument. It is dead, no matter how often and how loudly you insist that it is live. The only body who would maintain the value of your joulebuck is the Treasury, not individual private power companies (because nobody but the Treasury will do it willingly), just as it was the Treasury that maintained the value of the US gold dollars regardless of whether private gold sellers had sufficient stocks of gold to sell you.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"If it were just a monthly or even yearly stress test, that would be orders of magnitude better than anything we've ever had.

So much for a continuous stress test, and you can't even seem to get any sort of stress test started, much less on even a yearly schedule. You cannot point to any behavior for the joulebuck on the general market that would differ from a fiat dollar. In order for your joulebuck to be stable by design, there would have to be some difference in how it works on the general market. So far, you've come up with zilch.

Even if electricity isn't overdrawn, we'll still see energy prices rising. If the power company doesn't increase its prices, it'll be unable to pay for wages and fuel, which WILL increase in price when the printing presses start. It's still a good indicator that inflation is taking place. So even if there isn't a stress test, people will know one way or the other fairly quickly.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Even if electricity isn't overdrawn, we'll still see energy prices rising. If the power company doesn't increase its prices, it'll be unable to pay for wages and fuel, which WILL increase in price when the printing presses start. It's still a good indicator that inflation is taking place. So even if there isn't a stress test, people will know one way or the other fairly quickly.

The increasing price of electricity is not an "indicator" that inflation is taking place. It IS inflation, and it is not necessarily a big deal to your average person. I've lived with inflation my entire life, yet the dollar still commands my confidence.

As to the cost of the printing presses run by the Treasury, you still get the joules that the joulebuck notes have on their faces, regardless of how much it costs to print them. The only place it will be felt is in the increased budget of the Treasury. That tends to be well-insulated from most consumers.

Besides, in any practical, live currency, it costs much less to print a note than the note's monetary worth — because if your notes aren't worth the paper its printed on, you are in a state of hyperinflation.

QuoteThe increasing price of electricity is not an "indicator" that inflation is taking place. It IS inflation, and it is not necessarily a big deal to your average person. I've lived with inflation my entire life, yet the dollar still commands my confidence.

The "average person" is a docile, impotent creature, I don't use him as my standard frame of reference.

QuoteBesides, in any practical, live currency, it costs much less to print a note than the note's monetary worth — because if your notes aren't worth the paper its printed on, you are in a state of hyperinflation.

Okay? You're completely ignoring my larger argument and criticizing details of the program that I have not bothered to harden.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteThe increasing price of electricity is not an "indicator" that inflation is taking place. It IS inflation, and it is not necessarily a big deal to your average person. I've lived with inflation my entire life, yet the dollar still commands my confidence.

The "average person" is a docile, impotent creature, I don't use him as my standard frame of reference.

And yet you're depending on him to stress test the currency. Hillarious.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteBesides, in any practical, live currency, it costs much less to print a note than the note's monetary worth — because if your notes aren't worth the paper its printed on, you are in a state of hyperinflation.

Okay? You're completely ignoring my larger argument and criticizing details of the program that I have not bothered to harden.

Because these details lie at the core of your argument. I cannot see where your joulebuck is actually used differently than the fiat dollar, other than in its redemption. It behaves exactly like the inflatable currencies you despise.

QuoteBecause these details lie at the core of your argument. I cannot see where your joulebuck is actually used differently than the fiat dollar, other than in its redemption. It behaves exactly like the inflatable currencies you despise.

I guess this is less about creating a new currency order than it is about changing people's expectations and culture with regard to the value of money.

Didn't work for gold. Why do you think it will work for joules?

History indicates that new currencies rise pretty easily without government intervention.

The Liberty Dollar (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Dollar) had like 100k users before it was seized. And Bitcoin is really, really popular even with the collapse of mtgox. So the demand is there for a new currency, even if it's not necessarily for joulebucks.

New currencies also tend to collapse just as quickly without that government underpinning.

The Liberty Dollar was seized because it was actually doing something illegal. They were unmistakably coins and notes intended to be used as a unit of account that was commeasurate with US legal currency. von NotHaus may have had a case that it was barter if the amount of Liberty Dollars in trade was negotiable on its own terms as in real barter, but practically it was being used as a substitute for the US dollar. It was pretty clear that Liberty Dollars weren't items of barter as von NotHaus, and the jury didn't buy that it was barter either.

Bitcoin, despite its promise, only seems to operate well in the black market. Everyone else treats it as a curiosity, as a collectable to own or in the hopes that it will replace other currencies. It's never going to be a real "currency" so long as that's true ('currency' in quotes because Bitcoin has no material representation as a currency must have — probably the only reason why the Feds haven't cracked down on it as they did with the Liberty Dollar). Not to mention that it's basis in value is even more pointless than joulebucks or even the gold standard — the calculation of solutions to a problem that has no practical value whatsoever. I could spent a lot of energy masturbating as well, but nobody is going to pay me for the results of that activity... well, not without looking creepy.  :rolleyes:

QuoteThe Liberty Dollar was seized because it was actually doing something illegal. They were unmistakably coins and notes intended to be used as a unit of account that was commeasurate with US legal currency. von NotHaus may have had a case that it was barter if the amount of Liberty Dollars in trade was negotiable on its own terms as in real barter, but practically it was being used as a substitute for the US dollar. It was pretty clear that Liberty Dollars weren't items of barter as von NotHaus, and the jury didn't buy that it was barter either.

So the Liberty Dollar was seized because it was being used as a unit of currency? How does that make its collapse not the fault of the US government? Why are you using a legalistic argument when we're supposed to be talking about an alternative system to the one we currently have?

QuoteBitcoin, despite its promise, only seems to operate well in the black market. Everyone else treats it as a curiosity, as a collectable to own or in the hopes that it will replace other currencies. It's never going to be a real "currency" so long as that's true ('currency' in quotes because Bitcoin has no material representation as a currency must have — probably the only reason why the Feds haven't cracked down on it as they did with the Liberty Dollar). Not to mention that it's basis in value is even more pointless than joulebucks or even the gold standard — the calculation of solutions to a problem that has no practical value whatsoever. I could spent a lot of energy masturbating as well, but nobody is going to pay me for the results of that activity... well, not without looking creepy.

They're making physical bitcoins and people gladly pay a massive premium for them. And actually, the Feds did crack down on Bitcoin, seeing as they seized mtgox back in July or so. They just can't do it for everybody, since btc is way too decentralized.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteThe Liberty Dollar was seized because it was actually doing something illegal. They were unmistakably coins and notes intended to be used as a unit of account that was commeasurate with US legal currency. von NotHaus may have had a case that it was barter if the amount of Liberty Dollars in trade was negotiable on its own terms as in real barter, but practically it was being used as a substitute for the US dollar. It was pretty clear that Liberty Dollars weren't items of barter as von NotHaus, and the jury didn't buy that it was barter either.

So the Liberty Dollar was seized because it was being used as a unit of currency?

No, it was being used as if it were US currency specifically, as if it could pay off debt measured in US dollars as well as a real dollar. That's not allowed under US law, because it's a form of fraud.

The Liberty Dollar was never a currency in the first place because there's no obligation for anyone to accept it as payment for anything. If you want to forgive a debt because you accepted an amount of Liberty Dollars in barter, that's your business, but don't pretend that is what's actually dismissing the debt.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteBitcoin, despite its promise, only seems to operate well in the black market. Everyone else treats it as a curiosity, as a collectable to own or in the hopes that it will replace other currencies. It's never going to be a real "currency" so long as that's true ('currency' in quotes because Bitcoin has no material representation as a currency must have — probably the only reason why the Feds haven't cracked down on it as they did with the Liberty Dollar). Not to mention that it's basis in value is even more pointless than joulebucks or even the gold standard — the calculation of solutions to a problem that has no practical value whatsoever. I could spent a lot of energy masturbating as well, but nobody is going to pay me for the results of that activity... well, not without looking creepy.

They're making physical bitcoins and people gladly pay a massive premium for them. And actually, the Feds did crack down on Bitcoin, seeing as they seized mtgox back in July or so. They just can't do it for everybody, since btc is way too decentralized.

Okay, but Bitcoin is still not a currency, and the coins aren't either. There's no obligation for a Bitcoin, in any form, to be accepted as payment for debt, as would a legally recognized currency.

And that is the problem with a non-governmental "currency." The fact that a currency is recognized by a powerful institution willing to say that it has some definite value and does indeed pay for stuff is what makes a currency a currency instead of just an ordinary commodity and item of barter. The US government will accept a US dollar as payment for fees, taxes, fines and other duties; it will not accept Bitcoins in any form for that purpose. Other governments will similarly honor the value of their own currency. Who will back up a Bitcoin?

I don't know what you mean by "obligation to pay for debt" in the case of the LBD. I mean, the holders can hassle their creditors all they want, but their creditors don't have to write off their debt, and nobody really pretends otherwise.

QuoteOkay, but Bitcoin is still not a currency, and the coins aren't either. There's no obligation for a Bitcoin, in any form, to be accepted as payment for debt, as would a legally recognized currency.

And that is the problem with a non-governmental "currency." The fact that a currency is recognized by a powerful institution willing to say that it has some definite value and does indeed pay for stuff is what makes a currency a currency instead of just an ordinary commodity and item of barter. The US government will accept a US dollar as payment for fees, taxes, fines and other duties; it will not accept Bitcoins in any form for that purpose. Other governments will similarly honor the value of their own currency. Who will back up a Bitcoin?

Obviously debt and taxes aren't the only things money is used for. And a government that refuses to collect taxes in the form of the most commonly used currency will collapse, like the Ming Dynasty when it refused to allow citizens to pay taxes in the form of copper coins instead of silver, which was in short supply at the time.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"I don't know what you mean by "obligation to pay for debt" in the case of the LBD. I mean, the holders can hassle their creditors all they want, but their creditors don't have to write off their debt, and nobody really pretends otherwise.

"Nobody"? Are you sure about that statement? I don't pretend that the LBD could really pay off debt, and you don't either, but are you certain everyone knew that? There's no one who thought that a LBD actually erased debt and must be taken —by law— to erase that debt? That's an important function in a currency: that a creditor is obligated to take a legal tender in the payment of debt when offered. Debts usually grow with time due to interest, so it is in a creditor's interest to delay the payment of that debt as long as possible. A non-legal tender has a great potential for abuse.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Obviously debt and taxes aren't the only things money is used for. And a government that refuses to collect taxes in the form of the most commonly used currency will collapse, like the Ming Dynasty when it refused to allow citizens to pay taxes in the form of copper coins instead of silver, which was in short supply at the time.

Copper coins which were issued by the Ming government itself, IIRC. It's hardly the citizens' fault if a government fails to take its own coin as payment for taxes.

As to becoming more popular, yeah good luck with that. The more I read about Bitcoin, the more it reads like a scam than any sort of legitimate means of exchange. It's very structure actually discourages end users from exchanging Bitcoins directly, and as such, all transactions are carried out by what amounts to regular-old, joe-blow credit, without the all-important check that a real credit line has — a paper trail. Every time a wallet-holding "service" is compromised, everyone's Bitcoins are gone with no possibility for redress. It also disproportionately profits early adopters. Both are hallmarks of scams.

QuoteEvery time a wallet-holding "service" is compromised, everyone's Bitcoins are gone with no possibility for redress. It also disproportionately profits early adopters. Both are hallmarks of scams.

On the other hand, if a bank fails you also lose all your money. And regular currency also disproportionately profits early adopters.

Personally I get the idea that the only difference between a scam currency and a real one is how many people believe it's not a scam. Bitcoin will operate just fine as long as people believe it's real. So will US dollars. Apply a bit of hyperinflation or lack of trust to either, and they'll fall.

QuoteBitcoin will operate just fine as long as people believe it's real.

That's all good and dandy, but the problem is few people actually do believe it's real whereas nearly everybody can hold government issued currency in their hand, buy things at the corner grocery, exchange face to face for a pack of smokes or get on a bus or whatever. Try panhandling for bitcoins. You can do that with actual hard currency and might even be able to pay your rent that way if you're good, but with bitcoins?  :rollin:

Like I said; the only difference is the number of people who believe it's real.

Something doesn't become less of a scam or fiat just because more people think it's a real thing. That almost sounds like religion, don't you think? ;)

I'm also not saying that all currencies are bad, though. I'm just saying the difference between Bitcoin and US dollars is a lot smaller than you think, once you get outside of arbitrary criteria like "how many people really really believe it's a real thing".

Also, Bitcoin and gold can't be hyperinflated. That's why people like them. The solidity of a currency is based on both the amount of faith in it and the lack of ambiguity in its supply. The USD is popular but highly ambiguous, while the btc is unpopular but unambiguous in its supply.

Gold at $3-4000 per ounce could be seen as hyperinflated. I remember when it was about $34 an ounce.

No, that means gold is hyperdeflated and that the USD is set for hyperinflation.

Quote from: "Plu"

QuoteEvery time a wallet-holding "service" is compromised, everyone's Bitcoins are gone with no possibility for redress. It also disproportionately profits early adopters. Both are hallmarks of scams.

On the other hand, if a bank fails you also lose all your money.

A wallet-holding company is in no way comparable to a bank. When I say that the wallet-holding company, I mean it holds your wallet — the coins that are supposed to be owned by you directly (which with a normal currency would be in your pocket) are actually held by the company. A pickpocket could pick my wallet, but that only nets how much money I'm carrying at the time, which is not all that much, so the damage is contained. When a Bitcoin wallet holder is broken into, a lot of people lose their money with no way to recover it, and it's very profitable for the thief. Also, with a bank, there will still be records of how much your account is worth before the bank failed (because they keep records of all your transactions), and as such you are still entitled to the FDIC insurance in case liquidation of the bank's assets cannot cover you.

Bitcoin is designed ass-backwards for a real electronic currency. In a real e-currency, security should be objective #1 — in the ideal case, no matter how opaque the process is, it should still be me and only me who is able to initiate a transfer of my money, even if a thief has all the data that is available online. This is actually something we can afford since computers are doing all the drudge work. However, it seems with Bitcoin, the only thing you need to hold a Bitcoin is the Bitcoin data values and to fool the P2P network that a transaction had taken place between a victim and yourself, which seems to be easy to do since the system is designed to be opaque. There have been a number of Bitcoin thefts amounting in the hundreds of thousands of dollars already. (It is also because of this opacity that the criminal underworld likes to use it.)

Quote from: "Plu"And regular currency also disproportionately profits early adopters.

True, but not this much. Bitcoin went from less than a cent to somewhere around $750 in four years. You don't get that kind of skew in value for a regular currency unless the other currency is being phased out.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Also, Bitcoin and gold can't be hyperinflated. That's why people like them. The solidity of a currency is based on both the amount of faith in it and the lack of ambiguity in its supply. The USD is popular but highly ambiguous, while the btc is unpopular but unambiguous in its supply.

Well, until someone decides that another algorithm mine is opened and becomes a valid source for Bitcoins. Even if there is only 23 million someodd bitcoins available from the original mine, there are literally an infinite number of algorithms from the same family to mine. So the notion that Bitcoin can't be hyperinflated is incorrect; it can't be hyperinflated, so long as everyone maintains discipline and no other mines are opened. Good luck with that. If governments can occasionally lapse in that kind of discipline, what makes you think that Bitcoin will have that kind of discipline in perpetuity, especially if the need for Bitcoins grossly outstrips supply.

Also, if Bitcoin takes over, you're going to be dealing with satoshis, not bitcoins, because there isn't enough bitcoins to satisfy the entire world economy's currency needs unless there are subdivided into an ungodly number of satoshis. Thus, the amount of satoshis that are around is going to be flexible, even if the bitcoins they're based on are not. Otherwise, you're going to have economic stagnation in places, which nobody is going to stand for.

In truth, ordinary levels of inflation really don't matter unless you're in it for the long haul, on the order of decades, because only then does the change in price become appreciable. An uninflatable currency will not solve price fluctuations and increasing scarcity in original production, the kind of economical trouble on the horizon in the real world.

I welcome the influx of new digital currencies. And I don't think BTC will be the last.

Of course, BTC won't be the last, because it probably won't last. It's too insecure, unregulated, and too small to be a world currency. The BTC community flatly avoids regulating itself, even with its glaring problems.

The future successor to BTC will have to be secure, with transactions flat out impossible without the legitimate owner's active participation. It will have to be regulated, because any currency that is used chiefly for the black market is one that is out of control — a certain amount of transparency is necessary to verify legit transactions, with transactions leaving a paper trail back to its original mining. It will also need sufficient quantity to keep it within realistic value. $750 is much too much money to use currency for — I would want there to be a paper trail for a purchase this large, to prove that yeah, I indeed own this thing and shame on you for stealing it, and a personal check or credit card is much more suited to that task than a Bitcoin.

And in a way, that system already exists. It's called the credit system, and while it's far from perfect, it's world's better than Bitcoin could hope to be.

QuoteIt's too insecure, unregulated, and too small to be a world currency.

Right, I understand the "insecure" part, I mean how do you make a protocol that "leaks" money?

That said, I'm sure people are fine with it being "unregulated." As long as the other guy gets the money you thought you sent, nobody who matters cares.

And "small" doesn't really matter, each btc can become 100 million satoshis, that's like 2.1 quadrilion pieces. That's plenty of divisibility, but if that's not enough there's always ltc, which is even more divisible.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteIt's too insecure, unregulated, and too small to be a world currency.

Right, I understand the "insecure" part, I mean how do you make a protocol that "leaks" money?

You don't seem to realize what these bitcoin heists consist of, do you? I'm NOT talking about bitcoins disappearing altogether. I'm talking about about thieves taking other peoples' bitcoins in transactions that the legitimate owners have not authorized. To the legitimate owners, the bitcoins are simply gone without any sort of compensation in exchange, into the possession of the thieves. It's a classical theft — no money is destroyed, but passes illegitimately into the hands of thieves. Hence, it is insecure. By design, it appears.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"That said, I'm sure people are fine with it being "unregulated." As long as the other guy gets the money you thought you sent, nobody who matters cares.

"Preventing being used for illicit purposes" and "preventing getting robbed blind" I think anyone could get behind.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"And "small" doesn't really matter, each btc can become 100 million satoshis, that's like 2.1 quadrilion pieces. That's plenty of divisibility, but if that's not enough there's always ltc, which is even more divisible.

That's not the problem. The problem is that all Bitcoins carry the entire history of their transactions to be legitimate, so a single bitcoin grows without limit as it is circulating. There are going to be many satoshis split and then recombined, turning block chains into an insestuous morass of side-links that is going to hog much memory and bandwidth. The whole of global commerce is furious and intricate, which means that the Bitcoin database will quickly grow into an unmanagible mess.

In order to avoid that, bitcoins can't be split very often (they'll still grow without limit, but at a much more managable linear growth), which means that bitcoins need to be small enough to be usable as entire coins for ordinary currency purchases.

Yeah I agree we need something more efficient and more secure than btc.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Yeah I agree we need something more efficient and more secure than btc.

Exactly, and we already have it. It's called "credit."

I like the idea of an untraceable currency, one that must follow internal controls on its expansion. If you can't accept that, then there's no point in talking.

I'm having a problem with your position because you seem to think that any currency could be either. Sure, Bitcoin may be "uninflatable" in its current iteration, but who knows what the future holds. If another bitcoin mine is opened, all bets for Bitcoin's uninflatability are off. This goes for any other electronic currency. As with fiat currency, the only thing standing in the way of rampant inflation is the discipline of the currency makers. Relative worth cannot be internally controlled because it is an externally imposed value originating from humans, and no manner of basing will change that.

As for being untraceable, sorry, no such luck there either. See, there is this thing called traffic analysis, where, just by looking at the patterns of how bitcoins are moving through the economy, you can identify who is doing the spending, even if you cannot decode the identifiers directly. The government has been doing it for years in its espionage programs.

If all your concerns are technical in nature, then I don't feel a need to dispute things. We'll cross that bridge when we get to it.