studiot Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 7 minutes ago, NortonH said: I did read your post. You mentioned countries where money is measured in camels. You said that in such countries the link between money and energy is very weak. I would like to know which country you are talking about but now you admit that you know of no such country. So I repeat my original statement. The value of money is directly related to the energy it can get you. If you think I am wrong then please give an example we can discuss. I most certainly did not make the statements you attribute to me. I also answered the question you actually asked accurately, but made no such admission as you attribute to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 13 hours ago, NortonH said: Pavel Cherepan, if indeed that really is your name, ! Moderator Note This is irrelevant to the discussion. Focus on defending your outlandish claim. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NortonH Posted March 10, 2018 Author Share Posted March 10, 2018 13 hours ago, studiot said: For instance in societies where there is a surfeit of energy ( an example would be those where money was measured in camels) the link is extremely weak. Well this looks to me like a claim that money is being measured in camels somewhere. 33 minutes ago, swansont said: Focus on defending your outlandish claim. Outlandish? Is that an opinion or a fact? Are you here to debate or moderate? Anyone one who thinks that my claim is 'outlandish' is welcome to explain why. So far that does not seem to be happening. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 7 minutes ago, NortonH said: 13 hours ago, studiot said: For instance in societies where there is a surfeit of energy ( an example would be those where money was measured in camels) the link is extremely weak. Well this looks to me like a claim that money is being measured in camels somewhere. Can you really not see the difference between what I wrote and what you wrote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NortonH Posted March 10, 2018 Author Share Posted March 10, 2018 Just now, studiot said: Can you really not see the difference between what I wrote and what you wrote? Sorry studiot, I am not playing these games. If you have anything substantive to say then just get on with it. The point of this thread is to discuss the 'outlandish' claim that the real value of money is determined by the energy it can buy you. It covers also the concept that the cost of stuff is determined by the energy expended in the creation of that same stuff. If you want to troll away in the hope of getting the thread closed then you will most likely be successful. If I keep responding to your increasingly irrelevant posts I will be banned for "trolling/counter-trolling" and if I do not respond I will be banned for "refusing to answer relevant questions". So, one last time, please tell us where money is measured in camels and has no relation to energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 18 minutes ago, NortonH said: Sorry studiot, I am not playing these games. If you have anything substantive to say then just get on with it. The point of this thread is to discuss the 'outlandish' claim that the real value of money is determined by the energy it can buy you. It covers also the concept that the cost of stuff is determined by the energy expended in the creation of that same stuff. If you want to troll away in the hope of getting the thread closed then you will most likely be successful. If I keep responding to your increasingly irrelevant posts I will be banned for "trolling/counter-trolling" and if I do not respond I will be banned for "refusing to answer relevant questions". So, one last time, please tell us where money is measured in camels and has no relation to energy. The irony of this is that I wrote a first post sympathetic to your 'outlandish claim', but not entirely supporting it. You chose the direction from there. First by asking "Can I tell you something...... " But since that something you asked for had altered my words in more than one way I had to answer No . I could have added I am unable to do so, but I did chose to suggest you reread my exact words so you could rephrase your questions. Instead all you have done since is attack me. So why should I help you realise that you are asking about the present and I deliberately set my society in the past. Furthermore you kept demanding countries, ( a word I did not use) whilst the society I talked about existed in a region of Africa that did not have formal countries at that time. Finally I mentioned the word surfeit, which is crucial to my examples since they had a surfeit of energy, which still exists today as I noted in the present tense. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bender Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 Money is not a conserved quantity. National banks create money all the time, without creating energy. I could also drop a stash of money in the ocean without energy expense anywhere. Bitcoins could even be created by anyone with a computer. You could also relate money to toilet paper. There is a link between the amount of money you spend and the amount of toilet paper consumed while making the product or service you bought. At least neither money, nor toilet paper are conserved quantities. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 Interesting examples Bender. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NortonH Posted March 10, 2018 Author Share Posted March 10, 2018 2 hours ago, Bender said: National banks create money all the time, without creating energy. Yes. And you end up with inflation for precisely that reason. If you create more money without creating anything else then you find that the amount of energy you can buy per unit monetary unit decreases. eg the price of petrol goes up. What you will find though, is that the cost of all products using, say, a liter of petrol as the numeraire remains pretty much unchanged. In short - You are confusing money with cash. Of course, if I am wrong, and my claims are 'outlandish' then someone should be able to give some examples of commodities in which the price on the free market is unrelated to the amount of energy that has gone into the fabrication of such commodities. The reason all this is relevant is because quite often we hear of someone trying to decide whether to spend $20,000 on a solar panel system which will somehow save CO2 by reducing consumption of coal powered electricity. Nowhere do they take into account what the $20,000 was actually spent on. Well now we have an answer - it was spent on energy, most of it fossil fuelled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 10 hours ago, NortonH said: Outlandish? Is that an opinion or a fact? Fact. I can spend the same amount of money on different amounts of energy. I can pick up a rock, and expend some energy. The value of the rock will depend on whether it's a gold nugget or soapstone. If one were to charitably interpret your claim to mean that some of the money you spend goes toward energy, it would be true, but trivially so. However, from your other posts this seems to not be your claim. Your claim about it being a conserved quantity is simply wrong, as is the claim that energy (as used in this discussion, i.e. not in a physics sense) is conserved, is wrong. Quote Are you here to debate or moderate? Anyone one who thinks that my claim is 'outlandish' is welcome to explain why. So far that does not seem to be happening. ! Moderator Note I can't tell if you are ignoring or can't comprehend the objections to your claim. But failure to address them, and just repeating your assertion (rather than build a case for it), is soapboxing. We're done here. Don't bring this silliness up again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts