Page 2 of 2

Re: Critical Take On GDP in the FT

PostPosted: Wed Nov 19, 2014 7:59 am
by DT Cochrane

Re: Critical Take On GDP in the FT

PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:24 pm
by blairfix
Here is a great article about the agonizing lengths that physicists are taking to define their fundamental units: ... al-upgrade

It represents a stark contrast to the shenanigans in economics, where the basic units are either poorly defined or do not exist at all.

Re: Critical Take On GDP in the FT

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2016 12:48 pm
by rsalisbury
I know this is an old thread, but this is a topic that interests me: I find the idea of an energy-based (or emergy-based) currency much more problematic than I have ever seen anyone admit.

For one thing, capitalization would still be possible. This is really true of any currency, but perhaps because CasP came long after most of the discussion of energy credits, no one acknowledges this as a weakness.

Worse, there is a problem that I have been calling the Generator Paradox: If you use your energy credits to buy generators, then you can "print" your own credits. Energy generation would quickly become centralized and controlled by a few people.

I think the distribution of Bitcoin mining power gives us an analog: Bitcoin is another currency that can be created using some sort of equipment. Early on the idea was that anyone could mine coins and so the network would be highly distributed. Quickly, though, people started building server racks full of GPUs to capitalize mining power. Now, not even racks of GPUs are adequate, as there are now ASICs that are designed for bitcoin mining. Today, over half of the mining power is in the hands of three firms. Capitalization and a creorder of technical infrastructure quickly centralized what was intended to be a distributed, peer-to-peer network and process.

Rather than having a financial investor class that ordains selected subjects with temporary control over capitalist hierarchies, we would just have an energy investor class doing the same thing. Hell, if "energy capitalists" are in control of production, they could even engage in inflation without even destroying the accuracy of the energy credits as a unit of measure. All they would need to do is make products more energy-intensive to produce.

Finally, I'm not even sure energy credits would make complete sense: How much energy is someone's time (labor) worth? The number of calories they consume? Some arbitrary number?

Re: Critical Take On GDP in the FT

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 6:11 am
by DT Cochrane