I'll second this motion.

Seems to me to be at least as big a problem as resource depletion in its own right.

Money is simply a system of operation that is designed to allow transactions of goods/services in a more sophisticated method than just barter.

Without a good system of finance we can't possibly hope to allocate resources in a sane fashion with or without ample energy sources.

I don't fully understand how the money systems work, but I am trying to learn.

I've watched a couple of good Google videos but to be honest, I'm none the wiser about any alternatives to the current system of finance.

Andy

I don't fully understand how the money systems work

Most don't. You've got Kensian, Miese, and a few other thinkers that one can debate their POV and end up arguing how many fiat dollars can buy you a kiss on the head of a pin.

In my bio page I link to a couple of money theory sites. And they should be of some help. The online book short circuit
http://www.feasta.org/documents/shortcircuit/contents.html talks about money and energy, might be a good place for you to start your journey.

And somewhere there has to be a site where money wonks go to wonk.

Well, that would be me.

Buy my book:

Gold: the Once and Future Money

available at Amazon.com

visit the website

www.newworldeconomics.com

The book is about a lot of things, but one of them, as one might surmise from the title, is how to use precious metals as a basis of monetary systems. This was common throughout the world in 1965, and worked fine at that time, so I will suggest in advance that many people's worries and criticisms of the system are not very well informed.

On the website, I have been doing a fair amount of writing on the subject of economics in the context of resource depletion/a focus on quality of life rather than "growth", which may be of interest.

Most alternatives proposed to the current system of money and financial institutions are worse than what we have now.

Precious metals make no sense as a basis for currency. Whenever you get a big discovery (New World, Calif., Alaska, So. Africa) then you get inflation as more gold (or gold and silver) is pumped into the system. Spain was plagued with hundreds of years of inflation from all the silver imported from roughly 1500 to 1800. The "free" minting of silver in the U.S. from 1896 resulted in an inflation that indirectly led to the Panic of 1907. Thus, forget about gold and silver. (According to some psychoanalysts, gold represents feces and silver urine, and this quirk accounts for the fascination that so many anal types have with precious metals. There may be something to this.)

A basket of commodities as a basis for a kind of warehouse receipts used as money might work pretty well. Never been tried, to the best of my knowledge, but it has been widely discussed for a long time.

Variations of the "social credit" proposals have been tried numerous times with limited (to put it kindly) success.

The best proposal I've seen was put forth by Milton Friedman when he was young--100% reserve banking. There is no reason why this will not work, and plenty of reasons to think it would work as well or better than what we now have.

Hayek and others have advocated competing moneys, in which the bad (inflation-plagued) moneys would fail and be replaced by sound currencies issued by banks or governments.

There is no particular logic in the system we have now; it just evolved to be the way it is today. For example, after the Second World War it was the genius of John Maynard Keynes that designed the Bretton Woods agreement that worked well for twenty years to rebuild the world after the Second World War.

A basket of commodities as a basis for a kind of warehouse receipts used as money might work pretty well. Never been tried, to the best of my knowledge, but it has been widely discussed for a long time.

And perhaps that would be worthy of discussion. With results or interesting bits placed on TOD. The Technocracy position - using kWH would fit the commodities angle and tie directly to energy.

kWH would 'be something needed', would be 'destroyable', could be expanded and contracted, Its just not long-term storable. Or even really short term storable.

The fact that kilowatt hours are not conveniently storable is a fatal flaw for a basis for money. In my own science fiction future history series, 190 proof potable ethanol becomes the new money, with the one liter "Everclear" as the unit of account.

Talk about liquid assets . . . .

Julian Darley has been talking and writing about the (untested) idea of local currencies "backed by" local renewable energy. I've asked him how can you "back" the currency with something that you cannot store, and can only be used once, but havn't gotten an answer. Perhaps facilities to generate such energy, rather than the energy itself, can be an asset worth putting faith in, but how can a currency be based on that? Or perhaps such a generating facility can forward-sell the power it plans to generate, and such receipts then swapped as money? But when they pre-sell the energy, what is used as payment? And, at some point the energy has to be actually used and paid for, there goes the "money supply"?

It is not clear to me whether "money" has to be "backed by" anything at all. You might say that our current "fiat" currency (do fiat-currency haters always say that word with a sneer? :-) is "backed by" the force of goverment (who, in the USA, gave the "federal reserve" (which is neither) the power to control the currency). But faith in the power of such government may be eroding. Is the problem the strength of such faith, or is the problem the uncontrolled printing of such money?

I agree that "100% reserve banking" may help, but perhaps even better would be to return the power of money creation to the government (via spending), as proposed, e.g., by Douthwaite. Perhaps 100% reserve banking is close to that, since the bank can then only gather interest on the money it has on deposit, not on money created out of thin air by loaning it out. But that still relies on "interest" payments, i.e., on perpetual growth (of resource use, not just money supply), and that's the real problem.

Current as 'Currency' ..

As Eric Blair says below, a ready energy supply is not dissimilar to one of the original energy sources and ongoing forms of currency, food, which has a similar problem with intermittency, storability and yet both carry a very high value to us. I would say that your generating equipment, like your farmland becomes your storage capacity, with the somewhat (but only 'somewhat') uncertainty of future yields. What's kept in a Silo or in batteries/pumped storage is more like the Refined Product, actually ready to sell, whereas the equipment and the prepared land/irrigation, etc is somewhere between your stored crude/proven reserves.

I don't expect energy to become the sole basis for a monetary system, but as ready energy becomes more scarce, the dividing line may become blurrier, or I could say academic. A windfarm will deliver fairly constant value, and will be seen to have an understood degree of reliability in doing so.. how does that not become an arm of the economic value-system?

Bob Fiske

I am very sorry i showed up late to this discussion.

If money is to be backed by renewable energy, then it would be a total paradigm change for everyone, and for the better.

Imagine if to expand a business the EROEI and relative amounts of value in value out were ruthlessly checked. Or to start a new one. Businesses which depend upon polluting would find they are not valued as much, especially when most renewable projects involve significant capital outlays at the start, and deliver energy at a constant rate UNTIL THEY are SCRAPPED.

Imagine that, projects which have KNOWN depreciations in energy output over time, unlike OIL/GAS/COAL which is unpredictable.

Wind is much more predictable in comparison to the PRICE of OIL/GAS/COAL. Same with the SUN.

We have an entire 1/4 to 1/3 of the economy geared towards simply ensuring that the economy is lubricated (the finance market), with a conversion to known energy outputs for a period of time this sector of the economy can shrink, and more people be liberated!!

Electricity has a per minute supply-demand balance - what "1 electrodollar" would be backed by is not a certain amount of electricity, but a certain percentage of the available electricity, so in high demand times, your dollar would naturally have less purchasing power, as less energy was available for you.

(choosing to have prices adjusted by the min. to keep up with that, or to simply buy buy the 'average production cost' that todays market sells by is a different question)

And that has been a historical way for a farmer to convert excess crop into something for trade, it stores 'for a long time' and if you have a fire, the miscibility with water means you don't have the same issues with spreading the fire when dealing with oil.

The root of the problem, apart from money is the root of all evil or evil is the root of all money, is that we are attempting to take a static thing, be it gold or paper or seashells, and make it represent a transaction which is a dynamic thing. Money, unfortunately, is subject to the Laws of Motion with all the exponential dislinearities that implies.

That a little money traveling fast can do what a lot of money moving slowly can also do is the nightmare of the central bankers. The much derided fiat money [ is there any Ferrari money?] has the advantage of NOT being based upon a static thing like gold and thus can be adjusted, within limits, to account for velocity. It is far easier and more fun to create it than destroy it, however.

Beware those limits. When too much Fiat money becomes Ferrari money, the braking system - usually high central bank rates - is used to mop up the excess liquidity, leaving those with their necks overleveraged with a case of road rash. We may be about to have a demonstration for those who have forgotten 1980.

Subprime Time? We can have all the beliefs and theories we like and people will still do stupid things with money just like they do stupid things with cars. Believe any economic theory you like, but money will be dynamic and exponential, just like any other moving object. When too much money meets not enough oil?

Don Sailorman
How do I find your books? They sound interesting, I love good sci-fi.
Bob Ebersole

You can find volume one at

http://sailormanslog.blogspot.com/

That novel is entitled "The Adventures of C.C. Eggum" and describes an apocalyptic collapse (helped along but not triggered by Peak Oil) in the near future from the point of view of a young teenage boy.

I'm still waiting for vol's 2,3.....

Volume 2 is finished and clean but not posted anywhere, because I do not know how to post stuff to blogspot.com

The now banned and sometimes lamented Oilceo kindly posted volume Volume One and explained how I could do editing, but I could not figure out how to do that either.

Someday these SF novels may make me rich and famous, but I've begun writing a series of crime novels now, and it will be a couple of years before I get back to science fiction.

I took a look, thought they were quite interesting, looked to me to have commercial potential. You're a damn good storyteller, Don!
Wish I could help with the posting, but I'm a klutz with computers.
I don't lament Oilceo. The guy was clear and coherent sometimes, but apparently had a drinking or drug problem. His selfishness and arrogance was appalling, and I found his trying to sneak back into the blog contemptable and disruptive. I hope the guy gets some help for his problem.
Bob Ebersole

'Everclear' = volatile assets

I think one of the real problems with peak oil is that money, however it is defined, can no longer be nearly as storable as it is today.

Today, we have insurance companies, banks, and all kinds of other financial services set up around the idea that if you have money now, you can have the same amount, and even more, in the future.

Once we are past peak oil, the amount of resources available to society will gradually (or not so gradually) shrink. We no longer will be able to set aside savings today for the future, except on a very limited basis - perhaps food stored away that we will still have, as long as it keeps. Or clothing and some books. But if we have a fixed number of dollars (or whatever), those dollars will buy less and less as time goes on.

Perhaps society can have some sort of fiat currency with a fixed number of units that will always have a big inflation problem. People will learn to treat the new currency very differently from today's currency. No life insurance, for example.

How about "Forever" stamps as a new currency or as the backing for one? One Forever equals one first-class postage stamp. So long as the postal system remains intact there would be solid backing for the currency. I think Ben Franklin would approve.

Remind me to invest some hundreds of $ in the forever stamps.

For only forty-one cents I can buy what three cents used to buy back when a dollar was (more or less) a dollar. If you don't buy "forever" stamps now, I imagine that first-class postage will cost you about a dollar by the year 2012 and possibly two debased dollars by the year 2020, and about three dollars by 2024, thus providing an inflation factor of over one hundred in much less than one hundred years.

Don,
What do you think of Ralph Borsodi's "Constants"? Here's one link among many. http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/swann_robert_on_borsodi_and_mone...

Todd

Borsodi's ideas are sound: They have been around for more than a century and have been tried out in various times and places. One problem these schemes have, however, is that they are not "legal tender." A great advantage of dollar bills is that I can FORCE you to accept them at face value for all debts private and public. Thus, suppose I owe a hundred thousand dollars on my mortgage: I can always pay it off with exactly $100,000. As a holder of debt, this works to my advantage during times of inflation. Thus I can pay off my back taxes, my credit cards, my car and whatever debt I have in dollars, regardless of their real value.

Now, if dollars go to a hundreth of their current value, suddely I'm out of debt . . . Bring the Jubilee!

Notice that with "constants" and their lack of legal tender status there is no incentive to inflate the currency to worthlessness. Governments, on the other hand, are chronically impecunious and often try to inflate their way out of difficulties, as the U.S. govt. has been doing since about 1940.

A great advantage of dollar bills is that I can FORCE you to accept them at face value for all debts private and public.

Not so. I went to the IRS office to pay one of their demand letters (for $300) and was told that they would not take my 3 $100 bills to settle the paper they sent me.

You could have sent the three one-hundred dollars in by registered mail, return receipt requested. Refusal to accept legal tender is a federal crime, and it also opens one to civil lawsuits. Thus, you could have sued the IRS and one (plus getting individual judgments from any individual agents who refused your offer of legal tender).

BTW, I've never heard of any tax authority anywhere refusing cash, though they are legally entitled to refuse thousands of pennies (since pennies are not legal tender for large debts).

Thus, you could have sued the IRS

I'll keep that in mind the next time I say to myself "Oh, hey my life lacks problems - what can I do to create all kinds of issues for myself!"

I've never heard of any tax authority anywhere refusing cash
I suggest that anyone who does owe the IRS to try paying with cash. Just to see if you have the 'we don't take FRNs' problem.

in federal lawbooks if the fed refuses to accept legal tender your debt is null and void as you made a good faith effort to pay with legal tender.

this does NOT apply with private debts (ie person to person or person to store)

(According to some psychoanalysts, gold represents feces and silver urine, and this quirk accounts for the fascination that so many anal types have with precious metals. There may be something to this.)

Come on now!

With Peaking in mind, rising energy costs create increased mining costs. Gold mining is likely to be less economic therefore less gold will be produced. With falling gold production a gold backed currency would likely lead to continuing deflation not inflation.

Governments have gone on and off the gold standard when it suits them. They can find a way to corrupt anything.

From Alan Greenspan in 1966........

http://www.321gold.com/fed/greenspan/1966.html

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.

This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.

If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good

say, not that this is an important insight, but how about digging a hole in your yard and depositing many tons of copper? Not bloody likely that will ever be confiscated, and even if people knew it was there - which they wouldn't have to - it would not be susceptible to casual sneak-thievery. In effect, you'd have a backyard copper mine with known reserves and 100% ore purity. You could paint it with epoxy first if you didn't want your grass and trees to all die....

I'm just saying....

> In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation.

Ironic then that the long term return in T-Bills is higher than Gold (example: 1972 to 2002 T-Bills returned about 600% and Gold returned about 533% -- and if you care about the volatility of the return then T-Bills kill Gold).

600% versus 533%

About 10.5 % better over 30 years, what a kill!

1972 to 2002...

Sure, looking in the rear mirror allows excellent predictions.

> 10.5%

No not 10.5%. It would be $6.00 versus $5.33 for every dollar invested.

> rear mirror

Since no historical data support the case of the gold bugs, they'd better not look behind because something might be gaining on them. :-)

Precious metals make no sense as a basis for currency.

Please send me any you have laying about. ... :^)

The problem will solve itself.
But not in a nice way.

Money is valuable because it is scarce. To keep it valuable, keep it scarce. Fail to keep it scarce and it becomes less valuable.

It amazes me how much obfuscation obscures this very simple fact.

I found this link on the history of fiat money interesting

Why does fiat money seemingly work?