These are very interesting comments that essentially point to the need for clarification that might come from the perspective I propose.

Gail invokes the recursive nature of energy extraction that currently keeps true costs opaque. She notes that economists are loathe to do the rethinking, although the ecological economists do engage in thinking of energy as the true currency and all that that entails.

Turmoil has essentially recast the proposal noting the relationship between money as a token representation and free energy, which actually does the work. This description shows that economics isn't completely off the mark in studying markets and allocation. It is the disconnect between true currency and its artificial surrogate that is at the root of misunderstandings.

And Kohesion notes the fog that exists around understanding wealth, its creation, and its proper uses. People can be rich in monetary terms and not contribute one iota to the economy in the sense of increasing the availability of free energy.

Both viewpoints can be true.

I don't know if it will be possible to change enough people's perspectives or not. I don't know if it could be done in time to make a difference. But I am reasonably sure that for us to eventually understand and maintain a sustainable economy we will have to realize the true role of energy flow and work processes. We will have to be able to manage this by measurement (accounting) and allocation (markets, yes, but also coordination). Most of all we need a strategic view of what kind of world mankind needs to have in order to achieve actualization and balance with the rest of nature. Once we have such a view, and a means to manage our behaviors, perhaps our species can settle into a mode of enjoying the world. Prudent reshaping, wisely chosen new technologies that enhance sustainability and comfort might replace the frenetic drive to consume and corrupt. I remain hopeful.

George