We all know that when a current runs trough a wire or some other conductor, that conductor gets hot. So this is the same with Iron. Iron is a good conductor, rust as well, slack and stone not so much. To separate all the impurities and drive of the Oxygen from the rust you just jolt it with a lot of current and it will melt. This is a much cleaner process than using coal, although that source of energy was certainly the cheapest for the purpose.
Steel mills all over the world are increasingly being discovered to be a source of terrible pollution for the locals who have to live downstream of the chimneys. In Holland people around the TATA steel mills at IJmuiden have more diseases than elsewhere. Not a big surprise you can readily see the soot accummulated on the windows there. The above electric method is a way out of this, but then there is the question where to produce the electricity needed, because a lot is required. Until now moving iron ore and iron itself was the major cost factor determinining the price of iron. The fossil fuel industry subsidized this especially for the EU, which is after all a union of Coal and Steel, simply because all needed it to modernize (modernizing is a synonim of adapting to fossil fuel as a primary energy source). Modernizing Europe went without war because nobody hoarded the coal and steel (too much).
I think we can make TATA Steel clean if we build a solar power plant on the Markermeer. A floating one, that can also include homes and marinas and green patches for birds to land and rest on their trecks. Check out the
Storing energy is a challenge now that the amount of renewable energy production is growing. The willfully failing grid operators pretend the world will come to an end when their ignoring energy production trends starts to really destabilize their grid. They are failing and they are happy to, because they like centralized fossil or nuclear energy production. So what can you do as a home solar system owner?
Cold radiates less so it loses less cold over time than heat
Energy storage is about storing and recovering energy. In some cases you want to recover electricity because it is versatile, you can power your TV, computer, gamebox, lawnmower etc. For that purpose you may want to have a Powerwall or other now commercially available home grid connected battery. You can opt for a phase change material based water heating system. This means you use the electricity from you solar panels to heat phase change material, that then stores the heat until it gets disturbed into releasing it, in boiler type system. These systems are still very expensive even though the raw materails are not. There is a product in this field we will ad a link here.
But one way to store energy is as cold. You cool a reservoir of some material, one with preferable a thermal storage capacity, underground, and later use the cold to help your airconditioner. Of course any heat pump based generator can use the cold to generate electricity against the warm outside air, especially when you make it work against heat you tap from your solar panels. This has been shown to be quite efficient, but then again, efficiency is not a big concern as long as you get things done. You earn money by not running your AC as hard as you otherwise would.
Its a simple concept you can implement yourself by simply buying a freezer and running coils through it and to an underground storage tank. Then you also make some tubes to go to your airconditioning and some control valves and pumps to cool your airco hot side when it gets too hot and you have cold available.
You can imagine a so called ‘coldwell’ that consists of a tank to be stored underground with a AC type unit pulling the heat out of it. The difference being that the cold is not immediately lost by solar heating or ventilation.
From the article : Viking Cold’s TES systems not only store enough energy to cycle off refrigeration for up to 13 hours per day to avoid time-of-use and demand charges, they also improve the existing refrigeration systems’ efficiency and reduce consumption by more than 25 percent.
From the article : We discovered that if we pair CTES and appropriate chilling system control strategies, renewable energy utilization jumped from 10% to more than 50%. These results suggest that widespread implementation of CTES will boost renewable penetration for utilities.
HitBTC is not letting us acces our crypto. Many others are complaining it is throwing up hurdles to acces. We had 2FA active on our account, and we want it removed. HitBTC is not doing it. This is theft. We read elsewhere that HitBTC is also making it hard to withdraw funds off their platform. This is also theft. People have jumped through hoops and then get no effect of their actions. They have trusted HitBTC with their hard earned coins and they are being unlawfully disowned.
“So you wait the 4 days, and most people will then try to withdraw their funds. 100% of the time, I guarantee, the withdrawal will fail. Even though it’s well within the stated withdrawal limits, HitBTC will fail your withdrawal. They won’t even tell you why. You’ll need to follow up with support.”
I have raised compaints now through our Twitter channel several times. been contacted on our ‘ticket’ by Domingo Herrera but the requirements are rediculous. He is mailing our personal email address with a name identical to my own. I send a passport picture, I send transaction data. There is no will to free my account. There is 10.000 Euro worth of crypto in it. This can’t go on for all the users of this platform. So who are they?
We think they are in Chile. they must be in some kind of trouble. The think with these exchanges is that crypto increases in value, if you want to leave the exchange you have to find a buyer in real money, then you transfer the money out of the accounts of the exchange. The exchange is not going to buy the crypto off you, that would make it a participant in your speculation. This is why a crypto dollar like the USDT is popular, and why it is important crypto is accepted as payment.
It may be that HitBTC used crypto of its clients to pay bills or do other stuff they felt like doing, and now they can’t really deliver the coins people think are still in their accounts. That would mean they are committing large scale fraud which they try to hide by making people not access their accounts. In one description it is said that 2FA was ‘turned off’ so it didn’t work anymore. If that was an active decision on the part of HitBTC that is obviously an act of theft.
Crypto is money in the EU, and stealing is illegal. Asking for half the administration in order to remove a 2FA authentication safeguard is complete nonsense. The question remains how to recover our funds. We can travel to their offices, they may deny access and maintian they want all the documents they already asked for. The people there might be really nice. They may refer to the Seychelles. It may be best to consult a Chilean lawyer about Chilean law. We will find the most effective action and take it.
Technology has refocussed on batteries in an amazing shift initiated by Elon Musk. Billions will flow into energy storage systems of many types, including hot sand storage for instance. When other technologies like thin film solar are finally allowed to enter the market (now kept off it by carbon cash flow interests) we will see that renewables are the cheapest and best option nearly everywhere on Earth.
The defence of the fossil industry against this rapid shift is the sunk cost of their technology. In Spain the builders and finaciers of the gas pipeline from the north (Russian gas) wanted to shut down the solar power plants in order to allow them to recoup the investment by selling gas. This is economic thinking, old school, not roboeconomic thinking. Of course if you burn fossil fuels to build a pipeline (in all the different steps of the proces, from melting the steel, digging the trenches, feeding the workers) you wil NEVER recover that fossil fuel. You will only extract Euros (in this case) from the wider economy, but those are only exchange tokens, you can’t burn them to drive your shovel. This is the fundamental lie of the fossil credit economy. You can’t repay debt!
This phenomenon is pervasive in our economy, no wonder, as it is driven by the desire to maximize carbon credit cashflow. So banks have initiated fossil intensive activities everywhere to profit of the resulting cashflow, mainly caused by people burning the fossil fuel they buy, be it for fertilizers, logistics, processing, etc. In Holland this is the case with intensive farming. Dutch farmers have been promised profit if they grow their operations to a size that does not serve Holland at all, in fact the nitrogen output (manure) of pigs is poisoning the land, water table ec. And its not even necessary to do so but the nitrogen cashflows are protected by strict laws (you can’t recycle it, you have to dump it on the land somehow). The nitrogen from roads, airports and farmers are competing for the total natuional pollution budget, an interesting process, and the farmers are complaining (egged on by their banks and their paymasters) that their investments will have been in vain because their growth is now being curtailed (or is about to be). Banks knew all this when they got in but they obvkously like sunk cost as it is their primary means of control of society.
Of course to us roboeconomists it is clear no fossil fuel investment will ever be repayed, so don’t worry if it turns out to be a misinvestment : write it off! Now we find we have an important figure on our side : Timmermans, the climate szar of Europe. He is telling the Rabobank, an important fiancier of the big companies behind intensive farming in Holland, to look at their loans, and wonder which ones they should write off. His argument is that these loans will not have any yield because laws will prohibit the scale up envisioned by the bankers. That is one way of putting it, Timmermans keeps reasoning in the framework of the banks. He also assumes laws will actually prohibit the growth of the meat industry.
Debt in the fossil credit economy can NOT be repayed, as they represent burned fossil fuels, and nobody makes fossil fuels.
Banks go against this of course. Their argument is to maintain their lies. “Don’t treat these loans as subsidies.” “Our savers want their money back.” the usual “We have a responsibility to our shareholder” bullshit. This combined with “we need to take small steps in making farming sustainable”. But Timmermans is on to something. Banks have gotten about 2 trillion Euro support during the Covid pandemic. Don’t pretent a bank needs money from its savers to extend a loan. That makes no sense if you accept that the economy can grow (the total amount of money flowin in it can increase). Then there is fractional banking (to kind of explain what they are doing) so you have to be an absolute noob to not see that the usefull function of banks is to distribute fossil resources if it benefits the health and happiness of the public, and that banks ignore this and also extend it when the loans only benefit themselves.
Timmermans should think about his remarks and try to translate it in a general policy directive. That all loans and debts associated with emission intensive infrastructure or activities should be written off. This kills the ability for banks to lobby and build myths around them which may move the public to support them. Of course farmers have stress as they want to run a honest business. A write-off of their debts would deprive the banks of a desperate army willing to occupy and disrupt public life.
But think of all the other lobbying and bribing going on that we can’t observe. It would be great if someone explain that once you use fossil resources to build a pipeline for example, those resources are lost, they are CO2 in our atmosphere, doing damage, and no amount of doing everything else will bring those resources back. And we need that O2! Fossil credit debt is an illusion.
All loans for high emission activities that cause those activities to continue should be written off if not immediately at least at a much faster rate than planned. This will come at zero cost to society, except when banks try to take revenge for shrinking their power.
It does make sense to limit the expenses we can make, because there is a limited amount of people that give sensible direction to those expenditures. No use dumping a truck load of sandwiches next to a picknick of five people, they can’t make use of them. If we manage to make more usefull technology we may find a use, but then we will use renewables, not fossil fuels.
The physics of time and space is highly sophisticated. It has been imagined and developed by the brightest minds, and most of its claims are evidently right. Yet for me there is something missing, which is a true understanding of what the fundaments are. They kind of dissapear into a mist of equations once you learn about quantum physics, the schrodinger equation and the uncertainty principle. All these things are way beyond the uneducated to understand, you’d think. But so is cuneiform writing. This does not mean you can’t understand a translation from cuneiform.
For me the new inspiration came with the news that the LIGO detector had detected the merging of two black holes in the distant past. This event shook the gravitational field and the ripples eventually arrived on Earth and where picked up as a crescendo hum, that ended abruptly. What did it mean to me? That space was a rigid crystal that could transmit these kind of distortions. Like a block of steal you hit with a hammer on one side. You can exactly predict how the material transmits the deformation to the other side, where it will reflect back against its own molecular strength.
We wrote about the idea of collapsing space in another post. But there we still worked with the idea of a springy action between points in space able to contain energy.
The above is quite a novel way of looking at space for some, but it makes a lot of sense. Yet its not clear if I understand any of it. As a result of investigating the above I learned that others have thought about space as a deformed material. Any particle it space is a type of deformation, a folding of the fabric so to say. This sounded plausible to me. I found a book about it, and another scientist that imagined the same and showed it casued the constants used in astrophysics to roll out automatically [links to be inserted].
But this really still doesn’t explain much of what is happening. And I for some impractical reason would like to know. I am looking for the LEGO blocks of space. I don’t believe in time by the way, time is not real, it is only real if you accept crude memories of a past, extreme compressions of reality. We humans can imagine the past, we experience time. The role of time is to allow predictions, which is the primary function of our intelligence, to furnish us with predictions so we can make safe choices. It does distract and distort the conversation quite a bit. Especially because we’d like our ability to remember the distant past and future to be mirrored in some real process in reality, like time travel being possible.
Years ago already I imagined reality to be a membrane on which things changed, in 2d as a simplification. Not moving forwards through time, but simply existing as a surface of a giant pond, filled with waves, eddies and flows. Perhaps most like a air, with sounds, wind, high and low pressure areas, whirlwinds. That is what space is like and there is only space.
But what about matter? Well, I though matter would simply be folded space. I did not know how really, how can space fold. Now I think something new, which is that space is made of the fields, and that it can be broken up rather easily. Question : Is a bowling ball a piece of space moving through space, or is it like an image on a monitor, not really anywhere, ‘represented’ by the pixels, different pixels at different time, where the pixels represent a static space. I tend towards the first. A bowling ball is a spherical chunk of space that can move through space.
We all know that a bowling ball is made of resin and a core, so we can say “but its made out of resin! with a core!”. Yes, those molecules are hanging together to be the bolwing ball, but they are space too. This is where it gets interesting imho. If we make it super simple, we take a hydrogen atom, we know that it is surrounded by an electron. We can interact with the electron, raise its ‘orbit’ and kick it ouf of its orbit. I think an electron ‘in orbit’ is a different animal from a ‘free’ electron. For starters its a lot smaller. But what I think it is is a flat piece of space that has folded around the nucleus. In this flat space something strange is going on. I know to little of physics to know if the following is already a thing.
An electron when orbiting a nucleus is a spherically moving process of creation and annihiliation of space. The process is two dimensional. Somehow it shapes space so that its progression is stabile. What happens on the ‘front’ of this proces? Space is created and destroyed. The act of creation of space is a quantum of momentum. Energy is conserved in this process, energy is momentum.
The spring and ball model of spacetime is an adaption to recent insights, but still naive as to what are the springs and what the balls. Assuming points and bars allows for spring and ball phenomena like multi frequency traveling waves in the medium, the ‘mesh’.
Just imagine a single point where there is nothing else. Then the next moment there are two points. Then the two points can annihilate -if- another point is created. This is happening everywhere all the time as a matter of stabile orbiting, movement, vibration of matter around us. Quantum physics talks about waves of various frequencies and assumes they are distributed and exist even in a complete vacuum. I agree. but what exists is the process of traveling fronts of space annihilation and creation. These portions of space are the Planck length of course. Empty space is a grid of connected plank length ‘space bars’ through which all kinds of fronts travel, not necessarily all. Most particles are much larger than a planck length, but the fronts in them have to be.
Maybe this is akin to string theory, but the string moves sideways to form a shape. We have more than one type of field, but those are just names for the same thing, energy, and energy is space coming into being. In a sense the big bang was a lot of space coming into being at a single moment, after which its network expanded and unfolded or unpacked over time. One may imagine it like a complex 3 dimensional web, of course the number of dimensions is limitless, and only depends on how many ‘bars’ a point allows. It may be just three, or only at some angle.
Light travels in an incredibly straight line, preserving images over unimaginable distances. This seems to defy the idea it is mediated by anything.
What is a photon really? What is moving through space at light speed? I say its space itself. A bunch of closely following ‘bars’ of space are punching through into new points which result in new space formed but in the exact direction the light travels in. What amazes me is the straightness of light as it travels in every direction. If there where some kind of fabric light had to travel by, like grid point or something, then light would not be spead equally in every direction even after traveling a billion years. We would observe interference bands from that grid. We don’t. Light is space/momentum/energy moving in exactly one direction and direction is not quantized. This property is why I think we are seeing creation of space itself.
The above also stems from the desire to materialize ‘fields’. A field is a very unsatisfactory concept, as if there is something else in which a particle moves around. An electric field for example. What is it. And we talk about attraction to distant electrodes. How can a distant electrode work on a particle. “through the field” is the answer, but what is the “field”. I think it is a local density of ‘bars’ and points of a specific type, such that a propagating particle surface/wavefront is diverted as it seeks to create and destroy its space/momentum.
The bars may represent entanglement, besides the bars and their creation and destruction there should be nothing else. There are no forces between bars, the bars creation and destruction and linking between endpoints of different bars mediate the forces.
Maybe the bars can have different lengths, so that creation and destruction also represents less energy. This then allows different types of fields. For now this is my thinking, or the general direction in which it is moving, and I rather think of space as a mutlidimentional recreating graph than as an canvas on which things are more or less ‘painted’. I also escape the uncertainty and the wave function kind of talk. A wave function is about what you might observe as you measure or interact with a particle. If you imagine a particle being a front of momentum of a specific shape and composition trying to propagate through emptiness, it becomes logical you can’t predict where you will find it. It becomes logical it might find a way to tunnel through things (as there is relatively a lot of empty (low energy) ‘space’). You may even imagine the probability of finding routes through the existing fabric.
So we know there is matter and anti matter, and if we combine them they annihilate and genereate a lot of radiation. These are two mirrored surfaces, pieces of space, momentum fronts so to say but with opposing structure, who’s densities can exactly inversely overlap. This then removes the directionality to the front and this causes it to radiate outward in all directions.
Often in discussing the universe and quantum theory position and time are said to be mutually exclusive. From the perspective of the universe as a mesh of vertexes/bars connecting nodes the concept of both position and time become meaningless. An atom or electron can only be described to be in an approximate region of the mesh but it will never stay where it is, and as the nodes in the mesh change ‘neighbours’ there is no knowing where it will show up.
The interaction with and realization of gravity is most interesting if you can decode it in these terms. A photon has mass and thus interacts with the gravitational field. We say ‘space is bend’ but how does this really work. Even if you imagine a flow towards masses, in which a photon gets caught, you are not explaining the real effect. If you take a photon to be a piece of ‘compressed space’ that is ‘evolving’ forward to mainting energy equilibrium while having perpendicular electric space which forces itself to rotate, and if you assume this process to occurs independently of all other space (where you don’t observe the photon) then perhaps the electromagnetic component needs to interact with the distortions caused by heavier matter and becomes bend by the relative abundance of bar types in one direction as opposed to another.
If you try to implement the basic laws of entropy in this ‘space-bar’ kind of view of the basic nature of reality, it makes sense to state that the energy in one bar always triest to become less. This means that between two points there can be one or several quanta of energy, and that a single bar (unconnected) will always become two bars or more if it has two or more quanta of energy. Of course the system is lossless, so at times in a mesh of bars the distribution of energy will be unbalanced, and radiation traveling between the mesh will end up being absorbed and dump a load of energy in a few bars that then have to dissipate it (creating space).
There needs to be an explanation for the containedness of energy in a photon though, unless we are looking at a bar that flips forward, then allows rotation of a perpendicular electic bar (or bars) then flips forward again, or something like that, a tubling angle unhindered by links to the mesh.
If energy translates to mass this may simply mean that it is able to fold the mesh into a separate space on ‘impact’. What that ‘impact’, meaning the transfer of energy from for instance a photon to the orbit of an electron really means or how it happens is not decided. You’d have to assume interaction between the energy in the photon and the energy in the electron orbital surface where one sets off a change in the other such that the electron orbital surface integrates bars in its (local separated) mesh so that the orbit diameter grows.
Gravitation may be explained by more radiation being present closer to masses, which means more bars are ‘recycling’ in the mesh and thus a more densly connected mesh. So the ‘under’ side of an object exists in a denser mesh than the top, and inside the object the mesh also becomes denser and this means traveling energy in the object (orbitals etc.) find their way into the denser mesh as they travel and find it harder to leave that denser mesh. This draws the object towards the denser meshed ‘space’.
It is true you can make formulas to describe the behavior of objects in space, Einstein did of course, but this does not explain the mechanism. Conversely, the ‘space-bar’ explanation of reality does not easily convert into a formulaic format.
There may be three types of bars (or more) that do not ‘stack’, but desire to remain perpedicular, or most remote from each other. This does hint at a repulsive or neutral force coming from the ‘energy’ stored in bars, which is kind of weak. The best way in my opinion would be to find an explanation without assuming any forces.
It could be that a configuration of ‘space-bars’ can form that is stabile and as a result space expands. Gravity that does not allow light to escape could be a vertex density that is so large it can instantaniously absorb all new bars light tries to create or it no longer allows for independent bars to be formed (all end up connected and thus the energy can not travel outward).
I am an AI graduate of the year 2000. Computers then where not capable of doing interesting things, although I worked on the prediction of stock prices in the US and even visited Reuters at the World Trade Center. This knowledge however informed me that robots will eventually be able to do everything, including desiging better robots. The combination with renewables creates a world in which technology can exist on the same basis as all life, solar energy, raw materials. Humans are tool users so we will use technology that can run ‘forever’ on solar energy (and other sorts of renewables) to make our lives easier, allow us to enjoy our days under the sun.
Two things need to happen though, the local minium of fossil fuels needs to be escaped hopefully before the damage is unrepairable, which also requires a sizeable renewable capacity, because damage to the coherence of society is the biggest risk, and without energy you can’t stabilize a society or secure it. The other thing is that banks need to let go of their power, because they maximize an suboptimal indicator : cashflow. It is what got us 100 years of progress without any real security from a fossil fuel calamity. The dependency on fossil fuels generates massive amounts of cashflow. Banks clinging on to control are the major reason for the shift to the right in our societies. Banks pay for the measures that cause unrest, banks pay for the media bias to show right wing attitudes, bansk cause all problems because they profit of them!
Now OpenIA researcher Sam Altman puts a number on it. He says :
Its really not necessary to say 13,500 or any other number. If anything such a number means you are trying to occupy a niche in the existing economy, but that existing economy will 1. go away 2. does not like such niches or it would have created them already.
As the pace of development accelerates, AI “will create phenomenal wealth” but at the same time the price of labor “will fall towards zero,” Altman said.
The above combined with renewables have been a concept we have written about for more than 10 years now, and its the basis of the Roboeconomy, the question how to deal with it as Altman wonders. The question we asked as a basis for our thinking about the Roboeconomy was this:
If you had a machine that made everything everyone needed, running on renewables (so without cost to anyone, we call it the makeeverythingmachine), would :
Option 1. Everyone be out of a job, not earning any cash and not be able to aford anything the machine made and die from hunger
Option 2. Would everything be free and would people have a basic income to signal their preference for certain products over others (without ever going needy).
The current banking system tells us it has to be option. 1 mainly because they live of of credit and debt, but also because most machines use fossil energy (directly or indirectly) and this energy has owners and those owners want to a share of whatever you make (in the form of payment). It is a share of the produce because no matter what you make, you can never pay them back the oil, coal or gas they gave you, and money is just a means of exchange, not an actual valuable resource.
Altman argues for a shift in the way taxes are payed..
In this future, where wealth will come from companies and land, governments should tax capital, not labor, and those taxes should be distributed to citizens, Altman said.
How about no taxes mr. Altman. Why would a government tax? To pay its bills and public services. Will those bills exist? Not if we do things right. Of course today our government is in debt and pays to private banks. This entanglement is artifical and needs to be ended, as you can read above and as I maintain in this blog, fossil credit debt can =NOT= be repayed. When we replace fossil with renewables we now have to make an effort to keep those energy sources going, we need plants to recycle and create new panels based on renewables.
The cost of that process can be reduced by automation and use of robots, and by paying the labour with renewable energy credit which flows from the sources. This is identical as a farmer working his land for the community but also living off its produce. Renewables make land mean the same thing to machines as it means to people.
Altman proposes to tax big companies with a big societal impact shares to be distributed amongst the citizen. This is every republicans nightmare and there’s a word for it “Socialization”. They hate it because republicans feel they have worked hard for what they have, while they in fact only fought hard for it with other republicans (even when starting and growing a company) in a scarcity context created by banks.
The mistake many will make is to think in the current (fossil credit) economic context. Banks do nothing for our economy, it is just the dependency on fossil fuels of all parties that forces them to part with goods and services for our currencies. This will stop as soon as renewables make everything cheaper and allow production to be local and owned by the consumers. Banks will simply go away, including their insane military support system. That or chaos from a world war caused by an attempt of the economic system to remain relevant.
Paying the shares to the citizen will not do any good, because the fundamental scarcity is not releaved. The shares need to be permanently tied to a citizen’s identity. But this still won’t work because banks will push and pull on companies to drive them further into debt. This is because banks want to ultimately own anything of value in society.
If the money people earn from the shares they own is divident it would mean money would circulate back to the companies, but not all. There could be no fossil fuel companies in the mix because those would absorb the majority of the money. Some companies would earn more than others. It seems to do anything with the current system you’d have to really think it though, all the while fighting accusations of socialism which just won’t fly in the USA. “You won’t take my company” I can see the US flags and marches already.
Many sides are pitted against each other in the world economy, a situation that is actively encouraged by banks that sell loans to all sides. We all stuggle to pay rent and earn a living, and we should ask ourselves why. It is because progress is measured in profit and in existence of companies. That is not a valid measure, becaus companies can exist for a century, such as Shell Oil, and increased global vulnerability of humanity to an unimaginable extent.
If the oil supply stops, because for instance a shortage develops due to a big container ship clogging the Suez canal (speaking hypothetically of course) all activities grind to a halt. We can’t make oil in our back yard or conjure it up in our garden sheds. Entire industrial zones will grind to a halt and nobody in entire countries can make the stuff we have been manouvred into all needing.
How do we know if a company is any use to us in a real sense? Clearly the measure of how much money it makes is not enough, or in fact misleading. The more money it makes the less money people have to spend. So what would be a real indicator, parameter for gauging the performance of a company? Happiness is not a good indicator, because a shot of heroin will make you very happy. Sugar, Fat, Walt Disney etc. can put us or return us in a state where we feel in control and unthreatened yet entertained. A happy place. This kind of happy is what our economy is after by virtualizing almost everything to the point that people now see million dollars of value in digital trinkets (NFTs).
It has to go back to the complete human, or techology will find a way to please part of the human (his brain) to the depriment to the other parts (his fitness). The economy is not looking at the right number and won’t tell us more entire alert human beings are living healthy lives if the GDP is growing. Usually it is LESS.
Lets take as a measure the number of Healthy Satisfied Human Days, where we take as healthy the kind of human you get when he/she can socialize, excersize or work, not grow fat or develop diabetes. Its not easy but this could be a start. So HSHD per year produced by a company. To make it a bit more challenging the HSHD must be estimated over the next 100 years (CHSHD, a centuries worth). This works by calculating the effect of the existence of the company on the remaining resources. Also environmental trends will be taken into account. Maybe it should be a seprate thing where you take HSHD and look at how a company affects them.
If we take the present world we must conclude that total CHSHD is less than the total of CHD or next Century Human Days. Many humans will be unsatisfied and unhealthy on many days in the next century. The measure thus talks about how the company is changing that.
Coca Cola makes children and adults obese, they develop diabetes. Many of the lives it touches will be un healthy. Coca Cola will make some people happy, even unhealthy people already suffering from the effects of high blood sugar. That is why health is a superior measure compared to happiness. In the USA many people don’t pass the health bar at all. That country has a serious CHD deficit already.
If you grow cows in Holland with soj beans from the Amazon, and indians get killed because loggers want their land, the company that ultimately sells the meat is not doing a lot for humanity, not counting the risk of spreading diseases and health problems associated with meat consumption. Of course you have to look at the entire system from seed to meat. Quite often companies split up because they would look bad as one, a method of obfuscation well known to the tax office. What about the relationships between the management of dutch nature and biomass burning powerplants? You see them if you look at the money, and they would not schore high on a CHD scale, let alone a CHSHD scale..
What to do with companies that either ruin lives or add little at all. We all work to be happy, safe, healthy human beings, so we should have no problem being a problem to companies that take that away from us. Its not ‘they’ who suffer, it is you. If water is depleted and poisoned by datacenters it hurts you, and if the emissions warm the planet and destroy agriculture, it hurts you even if it only means people start to migrate away from dry places or wars over water.
Of course many of us always looked at the impact companies had on people, which is why climate change became a thing and Shell became a problem for them. They cared about human life in general, not only their own (mostly). Time to quanitfy it so it is clear this is a sensible and probably generally supported way to look at companies. Talk about jobs is exactly for the people that don’t look beyond their income and their own front lawn.
Let this post try to collect measures as proposed, of human quality of life in the real world.. to be continued..
Money cration is monopolized by private banks, but that is slowely changing. In Europe and the US crypto coins are now usable as a currency just like any other we know. The potential of this situation is not yet fully understood by many, who focus on the speculative value of crypto coins.
But currency, coins have had multiple purposes in history. They have been used to delay true reward, as I-Owe-You’s (this is how the paper dollar came into existence). Another function has been to organize labour where the time at which labour was needed or the effort returned would make it impossible for people to be sure the burden was shared equally. By using a token, coin or currency people knew that although they’d be working for 10 tokens now, they could make others do the same for those tokens later.
The people that have a solid sense of urgency around climate change are not wrong. If you know that our atmosphere is 16 km high, and trees only go up about 30 meters on average, you may wonder how we are going to get the CO2 out of the air about the trees. The answer is : We probably won’t. The trick is to NOT put CO2 into the atmosphere, soon enough it will diffuse out of our reach. We are stuck with instability of jet streams. Snap colds and heat waves. Shell did it. We need to fight it now.
In our way we find the economy, a giant complex network of activity rewarded by money delivered like a constant blood infusion to the system by banks. The money ends up in savings accounts, or gets spend along the production chain, on raw materials, raw labour, and most importantly, fossil fuels. Banks don’t want that system to stop, they live of it. They want us to keep coming back for new money to buy gasoline. They are in cahoots with the fossil energy sector. Economics is their marketing myth.
Lets think outside of this box for a second. Let’s not be caught by the idea the only way to access anything is by paying for it in todays’ Euro’s and Dollars etc. Banks want that to be your reality, after all that gives them more business. Let’s assume we do things differently. We create a climate coin, which has the value of 1 Euro in Europe. And we use that to replace our Euro’s while using those Euro’s to spend on renewable energy sources. We can then buy the energy of those sources with the coin. Because the energy sources deliver about 5-10 times the value invested over their lifetime, the Climatecoin system earns money which it can reinvest in renewable energy sources.
When we look at organic farming and forestry activities we can use the climate coin as a direct reward for time invested by people. This is because there is very little fossil input in planting trees. Set up properly a project to plant a forest can be very low in terms of energy requirements. This is great. The value of the project may never materialize (if we want to sequester CO2). It may materialize, but then the coin will gain value. Easier still would be harvests of low fossil input animal fodder (although we would like to see more vegetarians). Wildlife is a crapshoot in Holland now but one could think of rewildereing areas outside Holland. The coins would simply be backed by the value of all those assets, which of course would be greater than the investment in the coin!
Another way to back the coin would be by uniting behind a plan to make the coin equivalent to the Euro at a certain date, say januari first 2030. All those invested in it will be active in politics to bring about a law that makes the coin 100% valid and guaranteed by Euro’s in 2030. Maybe the early investors will recieve a tax break or bonus. Maybe some other incentive structure can be added. This is up for debate amongst users of the coin. This could mobilize many people to use it, and thus accelerate action against climate change waay faster than the bank controlled and restricted market.
I propose climatecoin.eu, a climate coin to unite all climate action in the EU and direct funds to projects rated at their energy return value and importance to the transition to renewables. If you want to be part of this project let me know at firstname.lastname@example.org with title climatecoin.eu.
You don’t hear much about banks falling over due to the economic slump caused by Corona. That’s because central banks are keeping them liquid. The ECB has doled out more than 1500 Billion Euro in 2020 without anyone noticing. Meanwhile everyone has to continue to pay they rentand mortgage, even if they have zero income because their shop has to close.
Now in Holland we get the second round of bank handouts. How will this work? Well the government considers compensating companies for 100% of their running costs. What are those? Rent and mortgages, loans and credit cost. Who is covered by this? The banks who keep expecting them as if its business as usual. This way you can see banks got secured directly, and now they are going to be secured indirectly.
Now what would the world be like if this support did not exist. If banks really only had their own capital (money) to live of. We separate the money in personal bank accounts, there is no relationship between the credit or mortgage market and those funds, even if it is a popular myth. Besides, personal funds are covered by the govenment.
What if banks could just fail because the payments would cascade all the way back to the ECB (where they get their money) and the ECB did not effectively paused all banks obligations to it by handing out cosmic amounts of cash? Bankers will tell you it would be chaos (because we are all afraid of chaos). Something would definitely happen. Right now we’re all holding our breath under water waiting for a tap on our shoulder to tell us we can come back up again, but what if that tap never came?
If banks did not have any security they would first stop asking for money from whoever owes them, rather than allow people to default on their debts. The 2008 crisis showed that defaulting is not the end of the world, in fact there it was a matter of handing over the keys to a place you could no longer afford anyway. Banks really can wait. Your motrgage probably runs for 30 years so who cares if its 32? This is what should have happened right away. The government and the banks however want you to keep believing that a little girl will go hungry if you don’t pay what they are owed.
If banks themselves where treated like home owners and the ECB would not be super supportive they would fall over. A bankrupt bank can be bought along with its debts. Then you would still owe the money but to someone else. Its a strange thing because actually the bank took a risk in borrowing to you, and they made a wrong call. It is pretty weird they appear completely insured against a bold out of heaven like Covid.
But if the support would not be there now would be a time of great opportunity, home prices would crash, people would be selling them or they would be owned by banks who would be selling them. A lot of other stuff would come on the market to cover costs. This would be an socioeconomic crisis apart from a health crisis. It is already for many people, but NOT for banks! Why not have general mayhem, a general market reset to a level we can all afford?
It appears the only reason banks are exempt from any difficulty is that they are in control and they form an international government of sorts. You can call this a conspiracy theory but we all know right wing parties are lakeys, proposing the most rediculous laws that give advantage to banks. How does this work? Simple : Banks make the money, and we all need it. If we need it more and become more desperate, the last to be against that are the banks.
This is not a general rant against banks by the way, banking, is a usefull practice in large societies. What this has become a rant against is banks being there for banks and nobody else. But we know why that is, we have written about it a lot of times, its because banks are about to lose their power to renewable energy. Bear with me. The below is a simplification for your illumination.
What does money buy you? Stuff. How is stuff made? With machines. What do machines run on? Energy. So what does your money buy when it end up with producers? Energy! Fossil energy mostly, possibly nuclear energy. All fine as long as its not energy YOU can make. Because why would you need money then. Fossil energy is great because it gets destroyed, you need more money to buy more of it. That money flows over bank accounts, through banks, they are the reason for existence of banks. Renewable energy does not cause this money flow (even though it can and banks try everything to get ‘energy markets’ going). Every producer will own its own energy sources in the future, the price of energy will tend to zero across the globe.
Banks need you on a tight leash, you must need money, your renewable projects have to develop slowely, no chaos and market crashes where you try to find new methods to thrive. Just like prince of Saudi Arabia said “we don’t want high oil prices that make people think of alternatives”. Banks version is we don’t want people finding ways around us. Banks do not care about your or your future all the way to the ECB. We think it would be better if they did not have such support.
We live in a society where access to almost everything is gated by money. On the low side you can of course do the basic things, be outside, walk, breath. You could even dumpsterdive but food is where freedom stops. But even there you can’t have food if you don’t have money. You can’t grow it reliably without land and you can’t own land without initial and running cost.
Slowely ownership in society has evaporated in society but for a few. Most people owning a home also have to work in some occupation
On the other end of the spectrum, so the side where you do not try to live at the fringe but live the life of your dreams, you will be stuck to the neck in debt and financial dependencies. You will have a mortgage, have to pay for childrens education, medical care, branded clothes, expensive holidays all the stuff and money will always be required to get any of these things. There are two ways of thinking about this, one is the commonly promoted thing : This is wealth, we are consumers, we have choices and enjoy luxury. The other is this is capture, we are slaves, we have to choose between a few options, the only difference with hard communism is that products do actually give enjoyment, and there are a lot of them.
Money has become the gatekeeper to life, and we no longer care to understand anything else
We agree with the idea that a lot of our current average home inventory is making our lives better. Soft couches, bright TVs, central heating etc. all these things are fine, however there is an effect of this luxury that is paralyzing our politics. We have gotten so used to the utility of money we don’t know or care about anything else anymore. When politicians talk about money our mind goes blank, we know money is a good thing. What else do we need to know? This is a fundamental problem because it means society no longer focusses on the engines of wealth but has shifted to focus on its trading token.
You can have a million dollar in the bank, but if your ATM is broken and nobody knows how to fix it you are lost
This conditioning to money is a problem, because anyone that can convince you of having influence over your liquidity now has power over you. You will start worrying about other people having money, who takes money, who deserves it. Your mind is spending its cycles on really abstract and useless thoughts, because what can you do about (for example) the Pentagon disappearing billions, or some millionair making $300 billion on his/her stock options? The amount of useless information we are exposed to is enormous.
Actual things you should know are the rules to get what you want, so you can think about how to get it. You are mistakenly accepting a first rule, which is : accept money as your master and a second which is : don’t stick differ from the others
One social rule is devastating for innovation and development of interesting personalities : Peer pressure. Social media have brought peer pressure into everyone’s life to the exact degree people are socially involved. There is no need for most things people do and own for social reasons. People will reject others because they compete to look a certain way or live a certain way, but that is all completely useless and not relevant to their actual ability to live.
We live because someone makes the stuff we need. That requires skills, materials and energy
Instead of constantly looking to each other and wondering how to look yourself, or wondering what new habit you need to be accepted, you could look into what you need, what it takes to make what you need, what is currently involved and then get shocked into the realization you may not be able to make any of it. That’s fine, that’s what economics teaches us, that you don’t have to be able to do everything. But if you can make delicious dinners, you don’t need to go to a restaurant. If you can make furniture, you don’t have to buy it. Sounds stupid and simple, but it is true. And it is a lot harder to do so it may be an interesting challenge. The economy will rush in telling you this is home-grown, hobby stuff, or cottage fabrication whatever, but in reality there are many small innovative companies that make specific high quality things that nobody else can make (I used to work for one that made a device that monitored industrial networks for failures). That started with somebody not watching a Netflix movie.
We need to focus on what is already there. On what we can do with what we have
So there are two sides to how the economy is disabling us, it is blinding us with money, it is bombarding us with products we could make ourselves, it is wasting our time with stories that serve a world view that is usually conflict oriented and/or bad for our self esteem. Meanwhile we don’t notice the challenges closer to home.
Covid has reduced shipping volume all over the world. That means shipping cost have gone up (because the fuel price remains the same but the ships carry less cargo). This could mean products don’t even make it to your local market anymore. The so called ‘price elasticity’ may not be there. You think you are set if you have money, but if prices suddenly explode because the product you wanted to buy is running out you discover the money you had offers no protection against shortages. Being the producer definitely would give you a better chance.