Bloody hell I need a word. I need a word to describe the concept of energy-as-currency.
I made a joke and said "current-cy", obviously that doesn't pass muster.
The problem here is that I'm trying to invent/define what might very well be a new concept. The idea of a global, hard currency, backed by energy, measured in joules and not conflated with the stored form it takes. What the hell do I call it?
One idea I had, after a second's thought, was to steal a made-up word from a work of fiction. Tas. Its supposed be a physical measurement of "mystical force". On the one hand, the underlying concept of an underlying, intangible substance/motivator appeals to me. On the other hand, misappropriating even pseudo-mystical terminology will serve to undermine my credibility. Although, on the third hand (don't ask where I got it, just accept it as fact) the idea of drafting something from the superstitious types seems like simple justice; they certainly feel free to poach from the naturalist side of the fence.
The Greek "dunamis" (Roman spelling) comes to mind. It refers to the concept of "force that can be felt" and is the Greek root of "dyn-, dyna-, -dyne, -dynamic" in English. I need to be careful though. As I've said many times, beginnings are important; if I don't assemble this idea correctly, if I don't plan and define the parts in a coherent, cohesive and comprehensible manner...it mightn't hold together. Someone once said, "Ideas are fragile things. You have to be careful not to let them out too soon, before they're fully ready, or they'll die of exposure. On the other hand, if you build them up right, then the act of declaring them, merely saying them aloud causes them to suddenly seem possible, even inevitable."
So here I am, carefully laying things out, questioning my own thinking and answering those questions. Here I am defining things and looking for the proper words to communicate this idea. Its bloody painful.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Tapping the Fountain
So now I realize I didn't spell out how you get the energy/currency into the system in an orderly manner. After all, one of the core ideas behind a hard currency is that the government only circulates enough markers to cover what's in the treasury. If you go to an energy backed currency, how do you determine exactly how much there is in the treasury? Well, you start by bringing on board a small army of math nerds...
The logical place to begin is by establishing your known energy reserves, i.e. coal, oil, natural gas, uranium and anything else that is a static, naturally occurring deposit of recoverable fuel. Common sense says you might not be able to establish the absolute supply because it extends beyond current detection. That's fine, you set a hard figure of what you can now and as new resources are revealed you adjust your tally upward.
Next, local governments begin investing in production of energy by constructing renewable energy capture projects (wind, solar, etc). Tax dollars are used to add to the amount of energy in the system, with revenues from production return to them on a monthly basis, minus tax on income from energy production. These returns add to the over all energy/currency value of the system, being stored as cash in banks (where it will earn interest and be used to finance various loans) while the tax revenue is deposited by the government. Obviously this plan works best in areas of fairly low population with plenty of environmental energy for capture. What about the large metropolitan cities?
Once the basic method described above is put in play, large population centers can participate by investing in larger scale production facilities, primarily nuclear in my mind. It may be possible to simply purchase previously existing plants, (which I too close to radical collectivism for my taste), but I prefer the idea of new construction; it both increase employment and provides a platform for improved technology. The same basic principle applies, tax dollars build production facilities which are used to generate revenues of energy/currency that get returned, minus tax, to the citizenry. At this stage, with the basic mechanism established, we turn to the matters of efficiency and productivity. Simply put: the citizens (consumers) are best served by being as efficient as possible in order to reap the largest possible rewards from production returns. Add to this the prospect of privately adding additional energy to the system in return for further reimbursement and you encourage even greater productivity.
"But K.P., won't that lead to everyone just generating energy instead of building goods and providing services?"
No, Bunky, it won't. Why? Supply and demand. Simply because a private citizen could sit back and do nothing but collect on energy production, does not mean that they will. There will continue to be a demand for food, clothes, houses, transportation and luxuries. Someone will meet these demands because it is profitable to do so. Even if we reach a point where energy/currency production far exceeds consumption and provides an essentially free pool of...whatever it is, (dammit I really need a word for this) there will still be demands that will need to be met, however little it may cost to do so.
On the other hand, a certain amount of mass-production may go out. With an abundance of energy/currency many people will prefer to go into smaller scale, craftsmanship oriented production. Since essentially anyone could create a generic, mass-produced product at little cost, I can easily imagine a renewed focus on the craftsmanship of a particular commodity. Anyone up for a renaissance of The Artisan?
The logical place to begin is by establishing your known energy reserves, i.e. coal, oil, natural gas, uranium and anything else that is a static, naturally occurring deposit of recoverable fuel. Common sense says you might not be able to establish the absolute supply because it extends beyond current detection. That's fine, you set a hard figure of what you can now and as new resources are revealed you adjust your tally upward.
Next, local governments begin investing in production of energy by constructing renewable energy capture projects (wind, solar, etc). Tax dollars are used to add to the amount of energy in the system, with revenues from production return to them on a monthly basis, minus tax on income from energy production. These returns add to the over all energy/currency value of the system, being stored as cash in banks (where it will earn interest and be used to finance various loans) while the tax revenue is deposited by the government. Obviously this plan works best in areas of fairly low population with plenty of environmental energy for capture. What about the large metropolitan cities?
Once the basic method described above is put in play, large population centers can participate by investing in larger scale production facilities, primarily nuclear in my mind. It may be possible to simply purchase previously existing plants, (which I too close to radical collectivism for my taste), but I prefer the idea of new construction; it both increase employment and provides a platform for improved technology. The same basic principle applies, tax dollars build production facilities which are used to generate revenues of energy/currency that get returned, minus tax, to the citizenry. At this stage, with the basic mechanism established, we turn to the matters of efficiency and productivity. Simply put: the citizens (consumers) are best served by being as efficient as possible in order to reap the largest possible rewards from production returns. Add to this the prospect of privately adding additional energy to the system in return for further reimbursement and you encourage even greater productivity.
"But K.P., won't that lead to everyone just generating energy instead of building goods and providing services?"
No, Bunky, it won't. Why? Supply and demand. Simply because a private citizen could sit back and do nothing but collect on energy production, does not mean that they will. There will continue to be a demand for food, clothes, houses, transportation and luxuries. Someone will meet these demands because it is profitable to do so. Even if we reach a point where energy/currency production far exceeds consumption and provides an essentially free pool of...whatever it is, (dammit I really need a word for this) there will still be demands that will need to be met, however little it may cost to do so.
On the other hand, a certain amount of mass-production may go out. With an abundance of energy/currency many people will prefer to go into smaller scale, craftsmanship oriented production. Since essentially anyone could create a generic, mass-produced product at little cost, I can easily imagine a renewed focus on the craftsmanship of a particular commodity. Anyone up for a renaissance of The Artisan?
What you mean "we", pale face?
I read an interesting thing in the paper today: apparently the natives are getting a bit tired of being the poorest people in the country. Totally unreasonable of them, isn't it?
There is a debate currently, on the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation. It revolves around the economy, as one might guess; specifically the debate is between those that want to extract and develop the energy resources on their land and those who want to not, preferring to preserve the traditions and the land. As you might guess, the whole thing is being addressed as Hobson's choice. Normally I'd wax on about the various options between the extremes but today I'm more inclined to address it in relation to my own recent interest in...well, whatever it is. Words as yet fail me.
Other tribes in other places have elected to tap into other resources. The Northwest Band of Shoshone Nation is tapping geothermal power for instance and there various projects in the pipeline for the Nations in Minnesota and the Dakotas. Here, then, is where I suggest we begin with domestic development of my idea. Simply put, here is a group of people who stand to gain immediate benefit from the development of domestic energy resources in a broad sense and who would gain enormously from that energy being used to back a new, hard currency. By partnering with the Federal Government (I'd suggest a 50% split) the people of the reservations could be provided first with jobs building facilities for solar, wind, geothermal and biomass energy production, then with energy/currency (I really need a word for this concept) revenues they will be able to develop a more diverse economic base.
There is a debate currently, on the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation. It revolves around the economy, as one might guess; specifically the debate is between those that want to extract and develop the energy resources on their land and those who want to not, preferring to preserve the traditions and the land. As you might guess, the whole thing is being addressed as Hobson's choice. Normally I'd wax on about the various options between the extremes but today I'm more inclined to address it in relation to my own recent interest in...well, whatever it is. Words as yet fail me.
Other tribes in other places have elected to tap into other resources. The Northwest Band of Shoshone Nation is tapping geothermal power for instance and there various projects in the pipeline for the Nations in Minnesota and the Dakotas. Here, then, is where I suggest we begin with domestic development of my idea. Simply put, here is a group of people who stand to gain immediate benefit from the development of domestic energy resources in a broad sense and who would gain enormously from that energy being used to back a new, hard currency. By partnering with the Federal Government (I'd suggest a 50% split) the people of the reservations could be provided first with jobs building facilities for solar, wind, geothermal and biomass energy production, then with energy/currency (I really need a word for this concept) revenues they will be able to develop a more diverse economic base.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)