
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Spare Energy in Static Systems Versus Economic Evolution and the Need for Expansion


Ratings: (0)|Views: 6|Likes:
Published by pn

More info:

Published by: pn on Dec 31, 2007
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Spare energy in static systems versus economicevolution and the need for expansion
Ove Aigner HaukenesOctober 28, 2007
The way things work today, especially in an uncontrolled, uncondi-tionally free market as in the U.S., it results in the fact that a businesshas to expand to exist. It does
have the opportunity to balance itsproduction in a way that keeps it alive, but not growing. This is howeconomy works on microscale in the U.S. which reﬂects how the wholecountry works economically on macroscale, and thus why the eﬀect ismore explicit in the U.S. than other countries.In eﬀect, this means that as long as the U.S. is expanding it willcontinue to have economical growth, but if it starts to stagnate or to havea negative growth it will result in an economic crisis.
1 The dependence between need for expansionand BNP
I use the country’s BNP as a measurement for change in production, and deducethe eﬀects from that.As long as there is a demand for products, the production will be on a rise,and businesses will grow since people want the products. This will result inthat the BNP of the country will rise, and since there always will be a biggerdemand than production, the dollar will also rise, because it will be neededinside the country. Every dollar that exists will reﬂect more value relative toother currency since their country doesn’t have a need to sell out (other thenthe things that are set up as international businesses).But the catastrophic eﬀect here is that more and more people will have moreand more money. There will be a bigger amount of money sum sumarum (eventhough the wealth will be very centralized) in the country. It will end up with anunrealistic amount of money present compared to production, and therefore thedollar will be less worth, unless it is spent! If it is spent it will not be a staticvalue that will diminish the value of the dollar, but it will be an investmentthat will lead to an increase in the growth of the BNP, and the wealth of thecountry. And hence cause a rise in the Dollar. Of course, that is a very shortterm solution for how to solve the problem.1
1.1 the U.S. budget
Lets look at the U.S. budget: an immense amount of money is being spent onmilitary budgets. It is a demand that is being fulﬁlled, and always demandingmore. This has been the case since WWII, and that has been the basis for growththrough the whole period of the Cold War. Since 1989, suddenly there has beenan enormous cut in where to use money because of the end of the weapon race.Consequently there will suddenly be an enormous amount of money present inthe states that
there is no use for! 
And hence, no value. Money is like anythingelse... if nobody needs it there’s no value in it. It is just an abstraction fromfood. If everybody has food, you cannot trade a sack of wheat for an axe. Youwill have to do something else, or have exceptionally
food. But again,somebody has so
it.In the end that will cause that the dollar looses value, thereby leaving peoplewith less money. But production will still be high, a lot of things will be pro-duced that nobody can buy, which will cause them to sell cheap and so diminishthe BNP of the country. This again will make the dollar even weaker (inﬂationincreases), people have even less value for their money, demand will sink evenmore and BNP will sink again. Because of international trade there will benecessary to print up more money since the need for all the basic necessitiesproduced in other countries still need the same value as before to continue, andthe Dollar is weakened, even though this will weaken the dollar even further.There will be a self-enhancing eﬀect that eventually will make the economycollapse unless there is something to turn the tendency around.The interesting thing here is: Where is the point of growth of BNP relative tothe size of BNP which leads towards a situation where it is physically impossibleto spend all the money inside ones own country? There is a limit for how fastit is possible to spend money on defensive military activity. Sooner or laterthere will be a point where a country
to expand
to make room fornew demands and further trade to satisfy its BNP, and, last but not least: awar will be an
extremely eﬀective
way to create an instant demand, and hencea
change in a situation. There is no better way to create work for people,have demands up, have a rising production, and be sure that everything that isproduced actually is destroyed so that further production is secured. One CANnever satisfy the market, because it is destructive. For every square meter of bombed infrastructure there will be a market for big companies to expand theirbusiness, and thus surviving
and expanding 
. As an example: the rights forbuilding up the infrastructure and phone systems in Iraq were sold to diﬀerentcompanies
they bombed. Its not even being done discretely!
The problem is that in a static system, as the earth actually is; an internallyvariable system of a static
of energy in which you cannot have a
proﬁt within the system self. Stockpiled energy, and also stockpiled money, hasto be invested in its own system for it not to decrease the
it represents.
This is intersting with the knowledge that most of the top politicians in th ve US havebeen or are key persons in big corporations: Dick Cheney: Former CEO for HalliBurton, awar supply company which has quadrippeled its value and size since 2001, Bill Clinton, formerWall Street Banker, The Bush family: Have several big oilcompanies, and close business tof.x. the Bin Laden family etc. etc.
Another interesting, but less relevant in this context, fact, is that people in the Senatethat had ownership in the companies that got the deals had almost $500 mill. in personalgain from the deals
If a country has a lot of energy, it will be cheap. If it has little, it will beexpencive. If it sells out half of its energy in the summer, it will have less in thewinter when it’s realy needed, and everyone is willing to pay more for it, andthe electic companies will make a huge proﬁt from doing this energy-scam omthe people, until they start to react to the theft.
1.2 Is there an alternative to the present model?
If you want a business to survive without the need to expand, then the managerhas to choose
to uppen his salary more than for the things he actually needs.But since it seems to be the essence of Man, to relief ones own existential fearsthrough collecting excess stock of things needed for survival, and since it
thenecessity for scientiﬁc progress to have
spare time
, and hence a society withspare energy, or analogous, money, it is inevitable to acknowledge the need for asensible way to redistribute excess stock of (in this case) money for its currencynot to lose value, and for the economy to remain stable. But still, thanks to theideal and the eﬀort for having free competition (which in essence means thateverything is allowed), another company doing the same thing as your businessdoes, would reinvest all its money in itself, grow faster and bigger then you andsoon buy bigger quantas of things, sell them cheaper and eliminate you fromthe marked. So the world-government, mainly through the WTO (World TradeOrganization) makes sure nobody will be able to do business in a harmonic way,but sets the scene for the biggest companies to become bigger, and the smallerto go bankrupt.My idea is to create a formula based on BNP, growth in BNP and thepotential (or the limits for) a country to spend its own wealth. By making thisyou can create a border, (a line in the graph) where, as long as things happenunder this ratio of growth/value, there will be no problem. But every nationshould be obliged, i.e. by UN, to spend every amount created over that limit onsome international project, like bridges, the building of ISS, space exploration,projects for helping other lands to get out of poverty, and so on. Therebythere would be possible to create a constructive way of spending money thattheoretically doesn’t do anything else then decreasing the value of its currency,and thus keeping economy stable. I think a lot about space exploration inthis, because the problem is that in the end, if every country has a stableeconomy, and war is absent (although a defence will be present), the sameproblem will occur again in time, since our model of growth is exponentially (acertain percantage pr. year - this is NOT a straight line, but an exponetial graphwhich soon will demand an inﬁnite increase in production to match inﬂation,which, through the past 1500 years have been the single reason for the biggestempires to fall). There has to be a vent to let out the pressure, but still, peoplehave to have value for their money. Through projects in space people can getto own things, and expand their businesses into space and space exploration -to inﬁnity. There will be no limit (the theoretical limit is the amount of energythat is possible to extract from earth. Free energy from vacuum brings up someinteresting results rearding that). Thereby one can have growth without havingto lead destructive wars to release the economic pressure inside the system thatcreates the money.These are the ﬁrst outlines for the idea of a formula that can predict whena country will end up in the situation where war is a necessity for it to exist,3

You're Reading a Free Preview
