Notices
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Electrical Economics

  1. #1 Electrical Economics 
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3
    There is something I have been pondering for a while. I was wandering if in the future economies might switch to using electrical power as currency. You know, because it has actual real value behind it unlike fiat currencies. I mean I hope we all agree modern economies are obviously rigged methods of control by the ownership class. I realize there are a few technological barriers that would have to be overcome for this to be realistic, but let me briefly explain it as I see it.

    Electricity is the most portable form of power. All the modern money really represents is its value to be exchanged for man power. It is worth whatever humans conditionally declare it to be. Then overall this is averaged and bam you have the general value of the dollar which is dynamic and always loosing its value because they are always creating more money.

    Electrical cost. This is a real value established by the summation of the electrical cost of all factors of production. For example take a hydroponic garden. The required electricity required to grow a crop becomes the electrical cost of that crop. This process of determining electrical cost can be extended to calculate the real or natural cost in electrical power for any product. This includes the electrical cost of a certain standard of living, or the electrical cost of maintaining human life. These would be inarguable totals.

    So the power grid becomes publicly owned and everyone receives credits for a dividend of that power. Now this still means that there is currency, but that currency is back by real electrical power.

    I'm not the smartest person, but I'm just throwing this out there to see what you all think. I think the laws of supply and demand, especially regarding human labor, would still apply. However, I don't like the wishy washy nature of currency and all the complexities of economic policies that are in place today.

    Take a population, multiply it by the calculated cost for a basic standard of living, add the electrical cost of maintaining or improving the infrastructure (including paying people their negotiated amount of electrical power credits) and you arrive at the total required energy for maintaining a nation and providing for everyone. Using electrical power to expand the power grid to this newly required level and so on.

    Eventually someday we will have to quit burning fossil fuels. By demand they are going to become to expensive. Maybe when more of our infrastructure and machines are electrically powered this would seem more plausible. But I like the real value of electrical value and how it is almost as dexterous as human power. How in the future with proper battery technologies it might be traded like a commodity.

    Last note. Electricity is cheap and I think once you begin to calculate the electrical cost of things the become cheap to. This is perhaps meant for an age where automation dominates manufacturing or there are more widespread means of manufacturing at home. Like 3d printers.

    Let me know what you think about all that. If you had similar thoughts.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Schizoid View Post
    I mean I hope we all agree modern economies are obviously rigged methods of control by the ownership class.
    No.

    --
    Eventually someday we will have to quit burning fossil fuels

    That's a long long ways off, we've hardly scratched the surface as yet. I just hope we have enough love for life including our grandchildren, not to harness all of it.
    --
    But to get to the point compare money to electricity. To start

    Ease of transport: Currency, yes ; electricity, difficult beyond regional
    Easy to store: Currency, yes ; electricity, no existing technology


    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Schizoid View Post
    There is something I have been pondering for a while. I was wandering if in the future economies might switch to using electrical power as currency. You know, because it has actual real value behind it unlike fiat currencies. I mean I hope we all agree modern economies are obviously rigged methods of control by the ownership class. I realize there are a few technological barriers that would have to be overcome for this to be realistic, but let me briefly explain it as I see it.
    All modern economies are capable of being rigged. Any time you design a system of interactions with enough complicated rules, there will be a way to break the system by exploiting those rules in an unintended way.

    Just like how all computers are vulnerable to attack by computer viruses. There are measures we can take to protect ourselves, but nothing is ever totally indestructible to it.


    So the power grid becomes publicly owned and everyone receives credits for a dividend of that power. Now this still means that there is currency, but that currency is back by real electrical power.
    I'm not sure how it would work for it to be publicly owned and spliced into dividends. Who is paying the cost of producing it?

    I think electricity could become a currency on its own, with no need to formally declare it to be a currency. Just like how gold is a currency. But you wouldn't want it to be your nation's central currency because your economy would become vulnerable to massive inflation and deflation if the production of electricity didn't stay at one, fixed, constant, level.

    Basically every time someone invents a new generator, the stock market would crash and there would be a run on the banks.


    Eventually someday we will have to quit burning fossil fuels. By demand they are going to become to expensive. Maybe when more of our infrastructure and machines are electrically powered this would seem more plausible. But I like the real value of electrical value and how it is almost as dexterous as human power. How in the future with proper battery technologies it might be traded like a commodity.

    .

    No need to worry too much about fossil fuels. They dominate the market right now merely because they are cheaper than the alternatives.

    Wind and Solar only "cost too much" because their price is being compared against today's price of fossil fuels. If that price were to rise, then very soon wind and solar would be cheaper by comparison. And once they are cheaper by comparison they'll be what everyone does.

    Gasoline and Diesel substitutes can be synthesized from air and water. It just costs a lot of electricity to do it, and so right now the price is too high to make synthesized fuel competitive with fossil fuel.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    I can see an EMP collapsing your electric currency and your entire electrical market.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    106
    Theoretically, each commodity can by used as money. Electricity, corn, copper, silver, gold, cows, beer, chairs, everything. . (eg even in nazi concentration camps cigarets used to function as money)
    And historically that's what have happened. For certain reasons, gold (and silver) dominated as a money-commodity and until the end of Bretton-Woods gold was actually a kind of global money.

    I would argue that global economy needs today a bancor-like global currency. It's crazy to use a fiat national currency ($) for international trade. Think of a unique international currency. Similar to Bretton Woods system but, not in Bretton Woods this time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Never quite understood the attractions to resource based economies, historically they were extremely unstable, much less stable because one could ruin, destroy or steel the resource and locked people and regions into socio-economic classes fixed on where they happened to be born. While the fiat currencies aren't perfect, they allow nations and individuals to invest in themselves and take risk outside their own areas which allows economic strength in places otherwise resource poor.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    106
    Historically, US, UK, Japan and other developed countries achieved their highest rates of growth with commodity money/representative money. I don't say that there is causality; I just say that it's 100% possible to achieve growth while using this kind of money.

    Your point is interesting but, in terms of inequality, well, after the end of Bretton Woods, US became much more unequal than it used to be. Actually, right now, it's the most unequal period of its contemporary history. I'd say that mechanisms that determine inequality are based on mainly on class struggle instead of monetary circulation.
    Also since the end of BW, literally 100s of financial crises occurred allover the world and some of them were really huge (eg Asian crisis, Russian crisis, dot-com bubble, 2008 crisis, etc). Of course it's not that simple but, free exchange rates & fiat money system has certainly its disadvantages.

    On the other hand, fiat money allows governments to add freely money into circulation through government spending. Thus, it can control demand, sustain income, etc.
    Fiat money or not, problem occurs when a national currency functions as world money. That, alongside free transactions of capital & money (mostly for speculation) and free exchange rates construct a rather unstable system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. please see my post in economics
    By mrJoshua in forum Introductions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 15th, 2012, 08:53 AM
  2. Economics or Business economics
    By Arand in forum Business & Economics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: October 26th, 2010, 10:26 AM
  3. Morality and Economics
    By Golkarian in forum Business & Economics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: September 15th, 2009, 12:04 AM
  4. Funda economics
    By kunalkhan in forum Business & Economics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 21st, 2009, 09:41 AM
  5. help with macro economics
    By vj_su in forum Business & Economics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 5th, 2006, 03:04 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •