Sunday, 8 July 2018

Redefining Fiscal Conservatism. The Terra/Energy Based Fiscal Unit. Föres and Lagom White Paper, Boundary Conditions for a Fiscal Conservatism based upon Circular Economics. PART ONE Scope.

The Following is a precursor to the Whitepaper on
Redefining Fiscal Conservatism. The Terra/Energy Based Fiscal Unit. Föres and Lagom White Paper, Boundary Conditions for a Fiscal Conservatism based upon Circular Economics. (Part One) Scope.

⨊GåFöre(O⨋)The FedratedMutualSociety.⨊Före(s)And⨋Lagom(s) Putting the Complementary into Crypto Currencies!.

The Post is also a file note regarding calibration of the Embodied energy based currency which will be proposed in 

⨊Före(s) The store of Value component of the föres, Lagom dynamic currency complex.

The first two articles demonstrate a mistake in Logic engendered by treating energy assets as a Debt Based Financial Asset, Energy is either there or not there once you have nothing there is nothing you can not have less than no energy. Therefore any stock of energy must always be positive although if one adopts the Energy Cost of Energy measure, you may need to use more accessible Energy to extract untapped energy. On the Energy Returned on Energy invested Curve the current state of the art for this concept looks like this.

Energy Cost of Energy is explained here by Dr Tim Morgan.

SEEDS uses an alternative measure, ECoE (the Energy Cost of Energy), which expresses cost as a percentage of the gross energy accessed.Because the world economy is a closed system, ECoE is not directly analogous to ‘cost’ in the usual financial sense. Rather, it is an economic rent, limiting the choice we exercise over any given quantity of energy. If we have 100 units of energy, and the ECoE is 5%, we exercise choice (or ‘discretion’) over 95 units. If ECoE rises to 10%, we now have discretion over only 90 units, even though the gross amount remains 100.This is loosely analogous to personal prosperity. If someone’s income remains the same, but the cost of essentials rises, that person is worse off, even though income itself hasn’t changed.
Understanding ECoEECoE evolves over time. In the early stages of any given resource, ECoE is driven downwards by geographic reach, and by economies of scale. Once maturity is reached, depletion takes over as the driver, pushing ECoE upwards.
In the pre-maturity phase, technology accelerates the fall in ECoE driven by reach and scale. Post-maturity, technology acts to mitigate the rise caused by depletion. But – and this is often misunderstood – the capabilities of technology are limited to the envelope of the physical characteristics of the resource.

Stranded Carbon Assets,
From, Stranded Carbon Assets
Why and How Carbon Risks Should Be Incorporated in Investment Analysis 2014. Generation Foundation.
“(a) Direct Regulation: Regardless of whether carbon pricing manifests as a coordinated global
response to the Carbon Budget or is enforced through national, regional, state or local carbon pricing
or ‘cap and trade schemes’, the result would be a material shift in the valuation of carbon-intensive
assets over a short period of time and hence the stranding of carbon assets.
This paper highlights the risks associated with investing in carbon-intensive assets, and explains why we feel strongly that the integration of carbon-risk assessment in the investment process is of greater relevance today than ever before. As the case for curbing carbon emissions continues to gain support on economic and scientific grounds, the commercial viability of carbon-intensive assets – particularly fossil fuels – will be increasingly threatened, creating stranded carbon assets. For the purposes of this paper, we define a stranded asset as an asset which loses significant economic value well ahead of its anticipated useful life, as a result of changes in legislation, regulation, market forces, disruptive innovation, societal norms, or environmental shocks. (See Appendix A for further details).

'Carbon bubble' coming that could wipe trillions from the global economy

Demand for fossil fuels will decline in the near future with major macroeconomic and geopolitical consequences

June 4, 2018
Radboud University Nijmegen
Unlike current expectations, new research suggests that the prospects of the fossil-fuel industry are not bright, and that its demise may have profound economic and geopolitical consequences. Relying on ground breaking modelling techniques, researchers show that the consumption of fossil fuels will slow down or decline in the near future, as a result of ongoing technological change, potentially exacerbated by new climate policies.

Macroeconomic impact of stranded fossil-fuel assets April 2018.
Mercure, J., Pollitt, H., Vinuales, J. E., Edwards, N., Holden, P., Chewpreecha, U., Salas, P., et al. Macroeconomic impact of stranded fossil-fuel assets. Nature Climate Change
Oil pumps (stock image).
Credit: © Andrey Burmakin / Fotolia
New research shows that the demise of the fossil-fuel industry has profound economic and geopolitical consequences. Relying on ground breaking modelling techniques, researchers from Radboud University, the University of Cambridge (C-EENRG), Cambridge Econometrics, The Open University (UK) and the University of Macau show that the consumption of fossil fuels will slow down or decline in the near future, as a result of ongoing technological change, potentially exacerbated by new climate policies.
This transition will result in clear winners, importers such as China and the EU, and losers, exporters such as Russia, the USA or Canada, which could see their fossil-fuel industries nearly shut down. If these countries keep up their investment and production levels despite declining demand, the global wealth loss could be huge: 1-4 trillion dollars, a loss comparable to that which triggered the financial crisis in 2007. Even the USA could not pull out from the transition, as it would only hurt itself even more. Global climate policy is therefore no longer a 'prisoner's dilemma' game. These findings by researchers from Radboud University, the University of Cambridge (C-EENRG), Cambridge Econometrics, The Open University (UK) and the University of Macau are published in Nature Climate Change.
A dangerous 'carbon bubble'
Several major economies rely heavily on fossil-fuel production and exports. The price of fossil-fuel companies' shares is calculated under the assumption that all fossil-fuel reserves will be consumed. But to do so would be inconsistent with the tight carbon budget set in the 2015 Paris Agreement, which limits the increase in global average temperature to 'well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels'. So far, this prospect has not deterred continuing investment in fossil fuels because many believe that climate policies will not be adopted, or at least not in the near future.
However, and crucially, researchers now show that ongoing technological change, by itself and even without new climate policies, is already reducing global demand growth for fossil fuels, which could peak in the near future. New climate policies would only aggravate the impact. Continuing investment in fossil fuels is therefore creating a dangerous 'carbon bubble' that could burst, with massive economic and geopolitical consequences.
Winners and losers
The scientists modelled the decline of demand for fossil fuels using novel modelling techniques that track the diffusion of low-carbon technologies on the basis of empirical data. Examples are technologies in power generation, cars and households that become more efficient and therefore diminish the use of fossil fuels. They then tracked what this means for national economies, as some economies lose an important industry (mostly due to loss of competitiveness), while other economies get rid of high current fossil-fuel expenditures and imports. "This means that by 2035, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth is affected negatively in producer countries (e.g. USA, Russia), while it is affected positively in importing countries (e.g. EU, China)," Dr Jean-Francois Mercure of Radboud University/C-EENRG explains.
'Free-riding' climate change mitigation: good or bad idea?
With the USA's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the scientists also modelled what would happen if the USA did indeed continue to invest in fossil-fuel assets instead of diversifying and divesting from them. The analysis shows their GDP would be reduced even further. Dr Mercure clarifies this point: "With a declining global fossil-fuel demand, fossil-fuel production in the USA is becoming uncompetitive, and may shut down. If the USA remains in the Paris Agreement, it will promote new low-carbon technologies and reduce its consumption of fossil fuels, creating jobs and mitigating its loss of income, despite losing its fossil-fuel industry. If it pulls out, it will nevertheless lose its fossil-fuel industry, but by not promoting low-carbon technologies, will miss out on job creation opportunities, while increasing its fossil-fuel imports by not reducing its domestic fossil-fuel consumption. The outcome is therefore worse if the USA pulls out."
A new financial crisis?
The study findings support the existence of a carbon bubble which, if not deflated early, could lead to a discounted global wealth loss of between 1 to 4 trillion dollars, a loss comparable to what triggered the 2007 financial crisis. "If countries keep investing in equipment to search for, extract, process and transport fossil fuels, even though their demand declines, they will end up losing money on these investments on top of their losses due to limited exports," Mercure explains. "Countries should instead carefully deflate the carbon bubble through investment in a variety of industries and steady divestment. The way in which this is done will determine the impact of the ongoing low-carbon transition on the financial sector."
Hector Pollitt, study co-author from Cambridge Econometrics and C-EENRG, adds: "This new research clearly shows the mismatch between the reductions in fossil fuel consumption required to meet carbon targets and the behaviour of investors. Governments have an important role to play in emphasising commitments to meet the Paris Agreement to ensure that the significant detrimental economic and geopolitical consequences we have identified are avoided."
Divestment and creative destruction
The process of transition towards a low-carbon economy is now becoming inevitable, as policies supporting this change have been developed and gradually implemented for some time. "New efficiency standards imply that we do more with the same amounts of energy, as older, less efficient technologies are gradually phased out. The transition is therefore irreversible; however its pace can vary according to whether and how new climate policies are implemented."
The scientists conclude that further economic damage from a potential bubble burst could be avoided by decarbonising early. "Divestment is a prudential thing to do. We should be carefully looking at where we are investing our money.(1) For instance, much like companies, pension funds and other institutions currently invest in fossil-fuel assets. Following recommendations from central banks, commercial banks are increasingly looking at the financial risks of stranded fossil-fuel assets, even though their possible impacts have not yet been fully determined. Until now, observers mostly paid attention to the likely effectiveness of climate policies, but not to the ongoing and effectively irreversible technological transition. This level of 'creative destruction' appears inevitable now and must be carefully managed," Mercure concludes.
(1)ED. This is the key misunderstanding , the whole basis of this analysis should look at Net Energy Surplus over cost of energy extraction, then in a real sense the Sentance , "We should be carfully looking at where we are investing our Energy ( qua, Energy )", would have money taking the Debt based monetary unit as a referent renders the statement meaningless a per pro energy capital allocation decisions. 
Story Source:
Materials provided by Radboud University NijmegenNote: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference:
  1. J.-F. Mercure, H. Pollitt, J. E. Viñuales, N. R. Edwards, P. B. Holden, U. Chewpreecha, P. Salas, I. Sognnaes, A. Lam, F. Knobloch. Macroeconomic impact of stranded fossil fuel assetsNature Climate Change, 2018; DOI: 10.1038/s41558-018-0182-1

“Here we use an integrated global economy environment simulation model to study the macroeconomic impact of stranded fossil-fuel assets (SFFA). Our analysis suggests that part of the SFFA would occur as a result of an already ongoing technological trajectory, irrespective of whether new climate policies are adopted or not; the loss would be amplified if new climate policies to reach the 2°C target are adopted and/or if low-cost producers (some OPEC countries) maintain their level of production (‘sell-out’) despite declining demand; the magnitude of the loss from SFFA may amount to a discounted global wealth loss of $1-4tn”
This is an interesting viewpoint on the scenario that alternative energy sources replace Fossil fuel resources of energy ahead of the expected economic life of Fossil fuel asset investments.
My own perspective on the analysis is that where Capital Wealth is calculated as to embodied energy rather than FInancial *Capital*, the losses to those holding fossil wealth would be diminished in financial terms only, but not in embodied energy terms necessarily.
Here is a Graph of World energy use in terms of TerraWatt Hours,

 My own analysis and synthesis of the World Debt Money economy and the world Energy economy is proceeding well. I must say the Financial economy serves only one purpose and that is a one-time conversion reference point for explanatory purposes. The Financial System based on debt will, in time be recognised as and studied as an artefact of late-stage financialised Capitalism. Energy Cost of Energy, makes much more sense and tracking real energy wealth and prosperity if Tims hypothesis is correct, that Energy is the driver of prosperity, which I think he is, will see an energy-based unit of accounting for currencies adopted as a better standard or referent for Capital allocation decisions.

Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser (2018) - "Fossil Fuels". Published online at Retrieved from: '' [Online Resource]

Fossil Fuels

Fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) have, and continue to, play a dominant role in global energy systems. Fossil energy was a fundamental driver of the Industrial Revolution, and the technological, social, economic and development progress which has followed. Energy has played a strongly positive role in global change.
However, fossil fuels also have negative impacts, being the dominant source of local air pollution and emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. The world must therefore balance the role of energy in social and economic development with the need to decarbonise, reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, and transition towards lower-carbon energy sources.
This entry presents the long-run and recent perspectives on coal, oil and gas - global and national production, consumption, reserves, prices and their consequences.
I. Empirical View  
I.1 Fossil fuel production & consumption

Global fossil fuel consumption over the long-term  Fossil fuel production and consumption began with coal - its first reported uses date as far back as 4000BC in China where carving took place out of black lignite (one of the several forms of coal).1. However, large-scale combustion of coal is typically correlated with the period around the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
The visualisation shows the global consumption of fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas - from 1800 onwards. Overall, we see that global consumption of fossil energy has increased more than 1300-fold. As shown, coal was the first and only fossil source until the 1860s when crude oil consumption began. Natural gas production began a couple of decades later, in the 1880-90s.
The 20th century saw a large diversification of fossil energy consumption, with coal declining from 96 percent of total production in 1900 to less than 30 percent in 2000. Today, crude oil is the largest energy source, accounting for around 39 percent of fossil energy, followed by coal and natural gas at 33 and 28 percent, respectively.

Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser (2018) - "Energy Production & Changing Energy Sources". Published online at Retrieved from: '' [Online Resource]

Energy Production & Changing Energy Sources

I. IntroductionAccess to energy is a key pillar for human wellbeing, economic development and poverty alleviation. Ensuring everyone has sufficient access is an ongoing and pressing challenge for global development.

However, our energy systems also have important environmental impacts. Historical and current energy systems are dominated by fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) which produce carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases- the fundamental driver of global climate change. If we are to meet our global climate targets and avoid dangerous climate change, the world needs a significant and concerted transition in its energy sources.
Balancing the challenge between development and environment therefore provides us with an ultimate goal of ensuring everyone has access to enough sustainable energy to maintain a high standard of living.
In this entry we attempt to cover the fundamental pillars we need to understand global and regional energy systems: their evolution through time in terms of consumption, relative sources, and trade; progress in global energy access and our transition towards low-carbon sources; and crucially the main development, economic and health drivers behind the energy choices we make. It is intended to provide a fundamental background to the macro-trends in our historical and current energy systems, with key learnings on how we can use this understanding to shape pathways towards a sustainable future.asd

II. Empirical View

II.1 Global total energy production – long-run view by source

Let's first take a look at how global energy production- both in terms of quantity and source- have changed over the long-term. In the visualisation below, we have plotted global energy consumption from 1800 through to 2015. Note that you can use the absolute/relative toggle on the chart to view these in absolute numbers or as the percentage of the global total.

II.6 Energy intensity of economies
If we want to continue growing economically, increasing prosperity, and working towards poverty elimination (which most countries and individuals do) whilst efficiently managing energy resources (and reducing greenhouse gas emissions), 'energy intensity' becomes an important metric for tracking progress. Energy intensity measures the quantity of energy needed to produce one unit of gross domestic product (GDP) growth. It's typically measured in kilowatt-hours of energy needed to produce one dollar of growth (kWh per dollar). It is essentially a measure of the energy efficiency of economies; we want to achieve economic growth with as low an energy input as possible.
In the chart below we show how the energy intensity of economies have changed since 1990 (measured in kWh per 2011 international-$). Here, we see a distinct downward trend- at the global level, as well as across all income-level brackets. Note that you can view trends for individual countries on the interactive chart, and get a global overview using the 'map' tab.
In 1990, as a global average, it took 2.1 kWh of energy to produce one international dollar of economic output; in 2014 this had declined to 1.5kWh. This represents a 30 percent reduction. Efficiency gains have been seen across all income-levels. High-income economies typically have the lowest energy-intensity (i.e. they are more energy efficient per unit of economic output), and a large efficiency gap exists between lowest-income nations and the rest of the world. The relative energy intensity of economies is strongly linked to their composition, and more specifically the share of services versus industry and manufacturing output. The links between energy intensity and economy composition are discussed later in this entry.

Embodied energy cost of opportunity cost. Which would be a true metric of decision making where resource constraints involve mutually exclusive investment decisions.

Debt in Energy terms would be borrowing future Energy and using it up so that it is not available in the future In a very great sense this Energy Future Budget is Unknown. We have Proven Reserves and so forth and existing known Generating and refining and conversion capacities but until a sensible measure of debt based upon known future energy resources and their rate of use are coupled with ideas of a Unit of Debt, in the sense of Using future supplies or reserves Now instead of at some point in the future the Notions of Debt in financial terms are meaningless.
We do Know that all Debts and Credits do not sum to Zero in the existing system and this is due to the Principal Debt being issued without the Interest Element , it is from this simple fact that Money Scarcity exists as an idea and gives a notion then of a Time value of money expressed as a rate of Interest.GLOBAL PRIMARY ENERGY USE ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

15% of the energy use embodied in trade turns out to be induced by final consumption, and 85% is attributed to intermediate production

Steve you say EROI is only relevant to extractive industries I think this paper shows that is not correct. I think you are correct that International Trade is relevant, the relevance economically is relevant at the EROI embodied energy level though. Money in International Trade is a Convenient Posit ( Quine)(*1) What is important regarding that is that the receipt of currency can be exchanged for something tangible, the money receive is not an end in itself. Looked at in EROEI and embodied energy terms it actually makes your point crystal clear. That said its pretty clear to those who are objectively considering the point.
(*1)P.41 para 2.’s ignorance of economic thoughtMay 24 at 11:10amBill Mitchell has a new post “A surplus of trade discussions” responding to some of the criticisms of the MMT position on trade deficits (though he didn’t link to any of them, including my post “Some Preliminary Questions for MMT“). He opens with the proposition that “exports are a cost and imports are a benefit”, and reaches the following conclusion:
When it comes to trade, MMT focuses, initially on the real layer of the analysis.
Thus it is undeniable (and I am surprised to read all those who are torturing themselves trying to deny it) – exports are a cost and imports are a benefit.
Giving some real thing away is a cost. Getting some real thing is a benefit.
That doesn’t equate, as I have been reading the last few weeks, in a conclusion that MMT’s preference is for a nation to have a current account deficit.
It just states the obvious fact that exports, by definition, involve sacrificing real resources and depriving a nation of their use.
Imports on the other hand clearly involve receiving final goods and services where the real resource sacrifice has been made by the exporting nation.
In a world where we produce to consume – not for its own sake – then receiving goods and services is better (real terms) than sending them elsewhere.
Since I was one of the ones denying Mitchell’s opening gambit—though there must have been other people “torturing themselves”, since all I noted in my post was that I disputed it as a premise—I had better reply now on this issue.
I do not deny the proposition that “Giving some real thing away is a cost. Getting some real thing is a benefit”: that’s obvious in a materialist world. What I do deny is that this proposition has any relevance to either macroeconomics or trade theory. And I am not the first one to deny this: that honour goes to Karl Marx.
This raises one of my major issues with MMT: advocates know their own economic logic very well, but they seem to have little knowledge of compatible precursors to their views (or even compatible contemporaries, like complexity theory). Consequently, whether they realise it or not, they often end up making arguments that would be right at home in a conventional Neoclassical textbook. These arguments are just as wrong in MMT hands as they are in Neoclassical ones.
This “exports=cost, imports=benefit” MMT analysis of international trade is a classic case in point. There are at least three ways in which this MMT perspective is a backward step in relation to preceding enlightened work in economics:

  • Standard Neoclassical work on the irrelevance of opportunity cost below full employment
  • Marx’s arguments on the irrelevance of the seller’s utility in trade
  • The extensive Post Keynesian research on declining marginal costs of production and economies of scale.


End of Ownership, Circular Economy Proof of Brain and Primary, Intermediary and Consumption Energy Tokens. A Framework Evolves.


123Here is my Working Draft spreadsheet for the synthesis of the Energy Production of the world in kilowatt-hours and the Debt Based world Financial economy based upon local dollar parity currency exchange rate basis from the CIA World Fact Book.


Do Americans Know How Weird and Extreme Their Collapse is Getting?

Even the Dark Ages Would Laugh at Where We’re Going

Is it not really just another species of American Exceptionalism, is it perhaps White American Supremacy. With respect to Exceptionalism rather than the theme of this article, it is ubiquitous in societies going back through history.
We find it in Plato's Noble Lie, We find it in The God Pharaohs in Egypt, Chosenness is perhaps the oldest form of Idolatry.
We find it in Calvinism in the Unconditional election and we find it in Judaism. Far from being sui generis to this time and place in history, it is ubiquitous.
All that said it is, of course, evident that the USA has had a tremendous decline in its Civil Society and Presidents Trumps approach seems to be to double down on American Exceptionalism and America First, as one Green Party Wag said about Brexit, It is an imaginary solution to Real problems the same could be said about American Exceptionalism, White Amerian Supremacy and to Netanyahu Zionism.
The foundations of the cause of the current discontents lie in two things, Misallocation of Financial Capital due to late-stage financial Capitalism.
The Misallocation of Capital is also compounded by the Logical mistake of Mistaking Money for wealth. Prosperity is founded upon Human Creativity and Conversion of Energy neither of which are present in the calibration of the Debt Based financial unit of account.
Here we see the real exceptionalism at play in modern America, The Washington consensus and the Globalised Neo-Liberal project. The Rise has been the Rise of the Barbarians at the gate of The masters of the Universe coupled with their Goons, the Military Industrial Complex.
So in Brexit, In MAGA and in White supremacy we have imaginary solutions to real problems.
The Answer to the problem is to put the Conservatism back into Fiscal Conservatism re-defined into an Energy-Based Currency Unit, Bingo!