/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3463318
might be more efficient.

>>3463318
what? Like pay for gas based on how much energy is in the gas + overhead energy and labor costs to transport it to the facility you buy it from?

Makes sense to me.

suddenly motivation to less efficiency.

I work 2ice as long on projects that pay by the hour... if I can charge by the calorie I'll take even longer.

wtf is rejected energy

Would be hard to amass megajoules in a bank hedge fund.

>>3463339
implying people would buy someone who costs twice as much for the same job.

well, those mega joules would have to be traded for something, something everyone can have instead of bartering for it, something called money

and people would like to make a little extra on the hard work they invested, something called profit.

this is why we still run on it

>>3463342
I'm assuming it's energy that gets put into the grid but isn't used. Which is just holy fuck upgrade the fucking grid tier.

more like MegaJewels amirite

>>3463350
except you can change the value of money
a megaJoule is better representative of work and its value is constant

>>3463357

>>3463350
>and people would like to make a little extra on the hard work they invested, something called profit.
And that profit comes from someone else's pocket, so we end up with a widening wealth gap and society eventually collapses with bloody revolution.

Good thinking!

>>3463354
http://www.good.is/post/check-out-the-best-energy-use-chart-ever-2009-edition/

Well I was generally in the right area, it's wasted energy due to inefficiencies.

>>3463349
unemployment has often been remarkably low in my area. not at the moment, but often.

a lot of lazy bastards must have been getting hired.

>mfw everything is appraised by calorific value
>mfw you just made oil 1000X more expensive

it just seems like it would be a better measure of work and something I could easily compare in order to measure things. Energy is something all economic activity requires. If you want the economy to be energy efficient, why not measure economic activity in energy?

>>3463368
Also I just found this while reading that article
http://www.good.is/post/don-t-drink-the-water-organic-h20-is-a-total-sham/

>organic water
asdfasdfasdfasdfasdf

>>3463360
then call fucking dollars fucking megajoules.

and then adjust the price based on supply and demand

fucking done you didn't do shit, you renamed the Bible a science book.

>>3463392
Organic water?

What's that? Fish piss?

I'll take what comes out of my RO filter, thanks.

>>3463392
lol
People are stupid as fuck

>>3463386
so the difference between a 10 $ and a 50$ haircut, is the later takes 5 times as much energy?

This analogy doesn't work well in the service sector, and that's a large part of the economy in most industrialized places.

>>3463403
Yeah, except I'd have to constantly be changing the balue of the dollar in megajoules and a hundred other problems. But if we traded megajoules people could actually manage their energy investments without arbitrary mediums of exchange.

>>3463386
When do you plan to pull out the bitcoin troll?

>>3463420
but see, then you'd realize what a waste a fifty dollare haircut is unless you want to throw away your supplied energy to someone with better skills.

>>3463433
bitcoin?

>>3463420
Yes, conceivably, the person performing the 50$ haircut spends more energy living.

>>3463420
People who provide services are expending energy, why not compensate them for it. Time is not an accurate measure, because the energy demand of different services varies.

>>3463318

what a stupid idea OP. Just let the fed do what it does best: manage the country's wealth. You don't need to know what that dollar REALLY represents.

>>3463434
MOST people would disagree. The majority of women would anyways, and they are the biggest consumers.
Just because you think something isn't important doesn't mean that it isn't, you can't just ignore the needs of the majority of the population.

>>3463459
well yeah, the person would charge overhead for their personal energy expenditures to live. Sure. It's expected. It just seems more efficient and a better way to manage energy/labor costs in an economy.

Because "energy" does not describe the relative value of different resources. Like neodymium versus iron.

It's still just "dollars", and you put a dollar value on a megajoule.

>>3463476
the difference in value would be the relative energy costs associated with searching for, digging up, refining said metals plus labor costs.

>>3463490
If that's so there might be more motivation for recycling

>>3463490
I think you'd find too much volatility with pegging the dollar to the real cost of energy production. Fiat currency exists because people are retarded, so it is easier to convince them to work for shit rewards.

Economics is a science of delusional valuation.

>Labor theory of value

>>3463517
bullshit. Economics is about getting as much as you can done for the smallest price. The price of all economic activity breaks down to energy costs (2nd law and all that) and in order for an economy to be maximized people at all levels need to be efficient as fuck.

The view that economics is about deluding people to work hard for no rewards is efficient at a small scale, but that kind of greed causes massive inefficiencies on a grander scale: like the US.

>>3463537
partially correct. But what is labor cost? the energy that person requires to do his job and enjoy his life.

>>3463548
inefficiency is what allows the vast majority of our population to survive. In an optimized and efficient system people are mostly unnecesary.

granted 99% of humans are a waste of resources, but the 1% grows in number as the 99% does.

>>3463568
Yeah, it's not like we need the top part of maslow's hierarchy.

No, ideally we value transactions based on the intelligence first, and secondly energy, required to make them.

money is the closest thing we have to symbolizing how much intelligence was required to make a product

>>3463568
>>implying people deserve to live
no really, if our world were at maximum efficiency then nobody would go hungry. Too bad people are irrational, thus we will never be at maximum efficiency.

>>3463609
>if our world were at maximum efficiency then nobody would go hungry

indeed
all twelve people would be well-fed and happy.

>>3463596
intelligence is a product of entropy (energy expenditure)

>>3463623
>>implying we wouldn't need millions of people in order to make things

>>3463609
we'd also be an ant colony and thus negate our consciousness.

>good luck with that

>>3463625
they are not related except sofar as EVERYTHING obeys the 2nd law

>>3463638
twelve people don't need as much diversity as 6 billion.

>>3463652
>>implying ants as a collective don't have a conscious

trading energy just makes more sense since it IS the medium by which an economy moves. Without energy, nothing happens. Trading energy units would measure economic activity more accurately.

>>3463565
that was a hurrdurr reaction image, you're describing LTV, which is fucking retarded.

>>3463659
>implying you're fine with being a neuron in someone elses brain.

Now get back to work, those cheetos won't eat themselves.

>>3463683
>>implying you aren't already

>>3463678
intelligence > energy until we invent AI [and thus can cheaply and reliably convert energy->intelligence]

>>3463742
your being silly. Of course intelligence is more important, but the cost of labor (intelligence) is ultimately energy.

>>3463805
there's almost no energy usage difference between a normal person and a nobel prize winner

>>3463825
Well, nobel prize winners get laid.

>>3463841
if anything intelligence probably negatively coorelates with getting laid [but that's because it also coorelates with unattractiveness because unattractive people have to work harder to get laid]