/lit/ - Literature

Books that discuss the fact that the United States dollar isn't actually fiat currency but is backed by oil as a result of Henry Kissingers agreement with OPEC in the 1970s?

>>19449500
Our Finite World blog, but I think you already read it.

>>19449552
Haven't read much of Gail's blog but have read a bit of Tim Morgan's SEEDS blog and also Tim Watkins's Consciousness of Sheep. Reading the latter's Why Don't Lions Chase Mice which is a good little taster

>>19449500
There's all kinds of esoteric energy sources that can be deployed... you don't know if in 50 years cold fusion or something isn't a thing. That fact people are becoming stupider and the bulk of private investment is going to solar or wind corporate scams that won't be able to deliver and government won't aggressively subsidize nuclear is worrying

>>19449602
Thanks for the recs. I recently read a post by an Anon who theorized that the US imports energy by enforcing the status of the USD as the global reserve currency. Send goods containing embodied energy to the US -> get USD in exchange -> living standards maintained within US despite apparently stagnating energy use (pic related). In retrospect I guess it is pretty obvious and I'm wondering where he got the idea.

>>19449784
But what if there is not a breakthrough in fusion or renewable tech? What if we can't transition to renewables fully? Don't forget these wind turbines need fossil fuels in their manufacture, transport and repair. Nuclear does seem to be the one possible solution but can we build enough plants to keep enough energy in the system?

>>19449842
I wouldn't be surprised if we see a commercially viable fusion power plant within 5-10 years, thanks to the proliferation of fusion startups which can achieve good plasma conditions. Unfortunately, I don't think it can scale quickly enough even with the technical problems solved. Each fusion plant will have to go through a 7-year licensing process with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission just like the fission plants do. Yes, it is illogical and may lead to the end of civilization as we know it. No, I don't think the bureaucrats will waive the licensing process. The right hand isn't talking to the left, there is too much confusion about the real causes of decline, too much short-sighted thinking. Many policymakers endorse battery-based storage. The US alone generates 250 TWh/yr in natural gas peaking plants, which are the carbon-based equivalent of grid energy storage. 250 GWh of batteries were manufactured last year of which 25 GWh were for storage.

If I had to choose, I would endorse space-based solar power since it uses the very large existing panel production capacity to generate dispatchable electricity instead of intermittent electricity. However, it requires an enormous initial investment and current concepts lack the power-to-weight ratio required to keep launch costs economical.

>>19449500
Not a book and not an exact match, but the anime
>C: the money of soul and possiblity control
comes close, unironically

>>19449500
bataille, sorta?

I am a copywriter for a cryptocurrency analysis company and I'm very interested in this topic. I just started learning about crypto a year ago so most of what I've read is related to that.

Anyway, I think you would appreciate 'The sovereign individual'. Its a dry read, but its very illuminating.

I also assume that if you want to follow this topic then you should read up on Austrian economics.

>>19449500
Op (2021) _I am a fucktard who has read zero political economy whatsoever_ London: PalgraveMacmillan (forthcoming).

>>19451216
Considering this book came out in 1999 is it still relevant?

>>19451222
ah yes the chimera of the two least scientific disciples, economics and social """science"""
try dilating

>>19449500
what?

>>19452626
Energy is the base input into all economic activity including human labour. The availability of energy and its cost of extraction i.e. the energy cost of energy, has been the main factor in periods of extended economic growth, e.g. coal in the industrial revolution driving the British Empire, then after the world wars oil being behind the two decades of prosperity 1953 to 1973 and the rise of American hegemony. Following the oil shocks and decline in easily accessible, i.e cheap, energy, governments have increased debt and the money supply to compensate for a lack of real wealth creation. However money is just a claim on future economic activity, i.e. use of energy, and debt is a claim with interest for future use of energy and economic growth. However what is going to drive post-covid growth? Green tech? Stimulus? Short of finding an energy source that is more dense and cheaper to extract than coal and oil what is the outlook for 8 billion people in a world with a rising energy cost of energy?

The whole thesis of Graeber’s Debt book is that money is just a bastardization of social relations. That’s the closest I got, OP. It’s a really fun and interesting read.

>>19449500
False equivalency. The fundamental quality of energy is that it cannot be created nor destroyed. Applied to economics that assumes that every system is a zero sum game. You can find books which argue with that assumption, but they will all be wrong

>>19452784
The basic concept is seeing a currency as stored energy instead of value iirc. Ive seen a few crypto articles cover this but never really in depth.

>>19452773
Economic catastrophe? That's why, for the long term, it makes sense to invest in new energy technology. But as far as it's effect on the economy in principle, the situation you described applies to all technological advancement. Improved technology allows people to do more with less, allowing better goods for cheaper prices, lowering the barrier to entry for comfortable living which in turn gives incentive for people to work harder to acquire the new technology. In the end it is the only thing which causes long term growth

>>19452794
Sounds like the article was written to confuse. Energy is, at best, being used in a metaphorical concept, and value is an inherently ambiguous concept where economists debate over what it consists of. So exchanging one undefined concept for another is essentially meaningless. Unless there's a rigid definition in play I'm unaware of, it sounds like it was just talking about mindset instead of economics

>>19452826
You can calculate how many joules were used to create a bitcoin, and do whatever with the results.
Value on the other hard is arbitrary as fuck and gets fondled regularly by invisible hand rubbing.

>>19452845
I did not know that was a thing. Not sure how useful that is, since you can't turn the coin back into usable energy. So it's not really stored energy as it is spent energy

>>19452815
>you can afford a new tv so civilization is obviously progressing and improving
>economic growth good
>gdp good
>dont mind the narrowing cost of living, stagnated wages, dissolved middle class, capital stealing, rent seeking polluting globohomo behavior, its all just economic growth
mm bugs

>>19452856
I may have been unclear. I meant technology in the sense of improved manufacturing, and by people purchasing technology I meant corporations. And by long term growth I meant over centuries.

>>19452784
Sorry what's a false equivalency? Don't disagree with laws of thermodynamics, we can capture energy and use it to produce wealth, e.g. food that keeps 9 billion people alive but it costs existing energy to extract and we lose heat in the process and every step along the way. What if economic booms are tied to a very small cost of energy that is now beyond physical limits?

>>19452916
You can't use energy in a way that creates more energy. You can only convert forms of energy to each other (a motor converts electrical to mechanical, for example. An engine converts thermal to mechanical) at a 100% conversion efficiency or at some kind of entropic loss. But you can use wealth to create more wealth out of nothing, so wealth lacks the main distinct feature of energy

>>19451305
> Wants to learn about the economy but political economy (which basically just a synonym for economics anyway) is too fucking scary for him.
Are you retarded? Now if you wanted to talk about behavioural economics maybe you'd have a point butterlarper.

>>19454212
Yeah I never said you can create energy, only extract it or convert it between usable forms. But on the wealth creation aspect, you can certainly create more wealth from less wealth, e.g. raw timber can be turned into a table by a carpenter that now has more value (to a human) in terms of exchange than originally. But energy is still consumed in the process, even if a slight amount of solar power (grains and animal feed) giving our carpenter the calories to stay alive.
It's not about running out of energy sources physically, even fossil fuels as there will be trillions of watt hours beneath the ground in natural gas, coal and oil. It just becomes too expensive to extract with current fuel sources and technology that it is effectively removed from human consideration. But there is blind faith that renewables will plug the gap and we can go on living the same way and keep "growing" the economy, which is another way of saying we can keep servicing the debt that is created through modern financial wizardry. But renewable technology is not renewable itself, it only harvests renewable energy over a fixed lifecycle.