Energy Storage Symposium (Money Comment)

[Joe Leote]

This notice for an energy storage symposium appears in my inbox today, I
hope to attend:

http://www.gs.columbia.edu/news-dos?article=2012-energy-storage-symposium

one of the questions I have regarding economic science versus empirical
science or physics, is that in physics or chemical reactions there are
basically two laws that apply for an interaction between a system and
its surroundings:

(1) power is conserved; and
(2) entropy is generated

where it seems to me the real economy obeys both laws of nature, kind of
like computer hardware, while the financial economy defies the
conservation of power or anything else, since financial contracts are
generated, this is kind of like computer software.
Software maintenance costs have exploded as computers proliferate ...
similar to the effort to maintain financial systems that operate on
computer and human software.

Joe

[helge nome]

The study of finance/economics is really a study of the collective human mind.
That's why no formula is able to capture its essence.
Helge

> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:45:14 -0400
> From: tech_a...@verizon.net
> To: understan...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Energy Storage Symposium (Money Comment)

[Jean Erick]

      I don't think we could say that a science of economics is extant.  Divergences from physical and biological sciences are  generally reagarded as "fringe".  No great disagreement exists expect in the area of evolution and that is due to politcal activity and just the degree of plain stupdiity and arrogance in the US populace.

    Perhaps you will recall that my position is that the failure to distinguish money from debt is a basic source of this confusion.

    IMHO, the basic issue is freedom-slavery.   That is the main paradigm when talking about how people in groups relate.

     And, as Stiller put it, when you study economics, the subject of the study changes.

 

James

----- Original Message -----

From: Joe Leote

To: Money Group

Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 10:45 AM

Subject: Energy Storage Symposium (Money Comment)

[Joe Leote]

How can money be distinguished from credit/debt? Please do not put me to sleep with your theory of generic goods since air is a generic good and so is sunlight or life itself but none of these things could serve as money being too abundant by Nature.

Joe

[Terry Hammonds]

One example of the blurred line between credit and money may be how my credit union works.  Like other banks, they issue a plastic card that can used for credit or debit. The bank wants me to always choose the credit option at swipe terminals. They collect a swipe fee then pay "dividends" on the balance of my checking account. There is no accrued credit balance, money is transferred as if I had used debit. Is that a credit transaction? Generally, we see credit cards creating debt. Terms and processes we use to define financial transactions are fluid and can be made to fit whatever situation the bank wants, 

Sent from my iPad

[helge nome]

I guess technology is running ahead of our conceptual frameworks.
I.e. There is a lot more to "money" than we previously were led to believe.
Helge

---

Subject: Re: Energy Storage Symposium (Money Comment)
From: hammond...@yahoo.com
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:36:38 -0400
To: understan...@googlegroups.com

[Jean Erick]

     In reply to Joe whose reply showed up here, no where else.

     Try to wrap your head around the fact that my definition states that money is the ONLY generic good for the purpose.  That eliminates sunlight, which you must have gotten to much of, or air, which you seem to be in need of.

 

As far as making the distinction, why waste my time?  You tend to leave off whenever you can't meet a point as opposed to coming to agreement on where any point of disgareement may be.  It's called a discusssion.  Our point of disagreement seems to be that we each see the set/subset position in the opposite way.  You see money, if it even exists, as a subset of debt.  I see it the opposite, debt as a subset of money.  And I base this on the change from exchanging real goods for real goods to that of exchanging

............. "generic" good for real goods, and that labor is a real good.

 

BTW Most broad defintion of money:  Money is the basic element of a mechanism for the distribution of decision making power.

Narrowing to: Money is the Intangible Concept whose Tangible Expressions are the generic good; that good and only good used as the medium of exchange.

     Under the new law of accounts (which recognizes and deals entirely with intangibles), law refering the holding and transfer of money is called "payment" law, as opposed to the holding and transfer of securities "securities transfer law".

 

or  "Most forms of money are mere lawsuits in embryo"

 

 

To Lowell:

     IMHO - sources of confusion

1. MMM saying banks create money instead of saying banks create debt.

2. M1 "money supply" is a conflation of money and debt

3. "money supply" does not mean "supply of money".  It has to be taken as a phrase with a different meaning.

4. Reserves are not a part of M1, M2, etc.

5.  The refusal to distinquish between money and debt.  Seen any of that around here lately?

6.  The fact that, due to direct deposit and the res title transfer at the time of the deposit, nobody really has any money.

7. Joe Leote  ;-)

=

[Joe Leote]

James,

Below you are defining money as the "medium of exchange" and I agree. The term "generic good" adds nothing to the conventional definition in my estimation, but use it if you wish. Anything that becomes the medium of exchange is money in that context, and in the present system, we happen to create money and circulate it via debt contracts and double entry accounting customs.

Joe

[Jean Erick]

        "Medium of exchange" speaks only to its immediate function.  It provides NO rational for its function.  "Generic good" adds the --reason-- , and very strong reasons, that it IS the medium of exchange.  It adds the history of its derivation and does that simply, accurately, and CONCISELY in terms of its FUNCTION.  It establishes an accurate defintion by which it can, conceptually and simply, be distiguished from debt.  It covers all bases, from the most concrete to the abstract psychological.  To be honest, I don't know how I could have come up with it.  I'm not that smart.  It seems very good.  But, you have been about the only one considerate enough to give it any critical attention so it has not received much of a testing here.  Thank you for your attention.

    "circulate it via debt".  Yes.  I think this is very good.  This is exactly how I am seeing it now.  But, do you realize that you are now seeing a distinction between the two?

Debt is something that acts upon money.  Two nouns, one acting on the other as it's object.  The object never changing in amount, the actor increasing in tally each time it acts.

     POSIT:  All lending is intermmediate.  Some lending is "serial" intermmediate (no reserve requirement).  Add the fractional restiction  to serial intermmediate and you've got the US banking system.

     Debt is a renting of money.

     Debt is a transferance of money, in which a liability in the interest of the creditor is added to the debtors resources.  I'm not sure if that should be limited to "financial" resources or not.

 

James

----- Original Message -----

From: Joe Leote

To: understan...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 5:19 PM

Subject: Re: Energy Storage Symposium (Money Comment)

James,

Below you are defining money as the "medium of exchange" and I agree. The term "generic good" adds nothing to the conventional definition in my estimation, but use it if you wish. Anything that becomes the medium of exchange is money in that context, and in the present system, we happen to create money and circulate it via debt contracts and double entry accounting customs.

Joe

On 4/17/2012 10:28 PM, Jean Erick wrote:

     In reply to Joe whose reply showed up here, no where else.

     Try to wrap your head around the fact that my definition states that money is the ONLY generic good for the purpose.  That eliminates sunlight, which you must have gotten to much of, or air, which you seem to be in need of.

 

As far as making the distinction, why waste my time?  You tend to leave off whenever you can't meet a point as opposed to coming to agreement on where any point of disgareement may be.  It's called a discusssion.  Our point of disagreement seems to be that we each see the set/subset position in the opposite way.  You see money, if it even exists, as a subset of debt.  I see it the opposite, debt as a subset of money.  And I base this on the change from exchanging real goods for real goods to that of exchanging

............. "generic" good for real goods, and that labor is a real good.

 

BTW Most broad defintion of money:  Money is the basic element of a mechanism for the distribution of decision making power.

Narrowing to: Money is the Intangible Concept whose Tangible Expressions are the generic good; that good and only good used as the medium of exchange.

     Under the new law of accounts (which recognizes and deals entirely with intangibles), law refering the holding and transfer of money is called "payment" law, as opposed to the holding and transfer of securities "securities transfer law".

 

or  "Most forms of money are mere lawsuits in embryo"

 

 

To Lowell:

     IMHO - sources of confusion

1. MMM saying banks create money instead of saying banks create debt.

2. M1 "money supply" is a conflation of money and debt

3. "money supply" does not mean "supply of money".  It has to be taken as a phrase with a different meaning.

4. Reserves are not a part of M1, M2, etc.

5.  The refusal to distinquish between money and debt.  Seen any of that around here lately?

6.  The fact that, due to direct deposit and the res title transfer at the time of the deposit, nobody really has any money.

7. Joe Leote  ;-)

----- Original Message -----

From: Terry Hammonds

To: understan...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 1:36 PM

Subject: Re: Energy Storage Symposium (Money Comment)

One example of the blurred line between credit and money may be how my credit union works.  Like other banks, they issue a plastic card that can used for credit or debit. The bank wants me to always choose the credit option at swipe terminals. They collect a swipe fee then pay "dividends" on the balance of my checking account. There is no accrued credit balance, money is transferred as if I had used debit. Is that a credit transaction? Generally, we see credit cards creating debt. Terms and processes we use to define financial transactions are fluid and can be made to fit whatever situation the bank wants, 

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 16, 2012, at 3:54 PM, Joe Leote <tech_a...@verizon.net> wrote:

How can money be distinguished from credit/debt? Please do not put me to sleep with your theory of generic goods since air is a generic good and so is sunlight or life itself but none of these things could serve as money being too abundant by Nature.

Joe

On 4/15/2012 1:41 PM, Jean Erick wrote:

      I don't think we could say that a science of economics is extant.  Divergences from physical and biological sciences are  generally reagarded as "fringe".  No great disagreement exists expect in the area of evolution and that is due to politcal activity and just the degree of plain stupdiity and arrogance in the US populace.

    Perhaps you will recall that my position is that the failure to distinguish money from debt is a basic source of this confusion.

    IMHO, the basic issue is freedom-slavery.   That is the main paradigm when talking about how people in groups relate.

     And, as Stiller put it, when you study economics, the subject of the study changes.

 

James

----- Original Message -----

From: Joe Leote

To: Money Group

Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 10:45 AM

Subject: Energy Storage Symposium (Money Comment)

This notice for an energy storage symposium appears in my inbox today, I
hope to attend:

http://www.gs.columbia.edu/news-dos?article=2012-energy-storage-symposium

one of the questions I have regarding economic science versus empirical
science or physics, is that in physics or chemical reactions there are
basically two laws that apply for an interaction between a system and
its surroundings:

(1) power is conserved; and
(2) entropy is generated

where it seems to me the real economy obeys both laws of nature, kind of
like computer hardware, while the financial economy defies the
conservation of power or anything else, since financial contracts are
generated, this is kind of like computer software.
Software maintenance costs have exploded as computers proliferate ...
similar to the effort to maintain financial systems that operate on
computer and human software.

Joe

=

[helge nome]

I think we tend to be, in our conversation, overly focussed on "debt", leaving cousin "credit" out of view, for the most part.
Credit is a transference of money, because it gives you an ability to exchange it for goods and services: The bank creates credit in your cheque account.
You can exchange debt for money: Selling a mortgage, but it probably qualifies more as an "asset" than as "money".
Our semantic map seems to be rather muddled.
Helge

---

From: jean...@sbcglobal.net
To: understan...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: Energy Storage Symposium (Money Comment)

Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:08:05 -0700

[Joe Leote]

James,

I would identify the deeper source of money as reciprocal altruism and the ability to self-other communicate. The appetite for money begins with parenting in a money-culture (other animals and human cultures show no appetite for money as a mode of self-other communication). I suppose modes of self-other communication are a form of generic good, however, I find the term generic good to be too broad in scope and thus it incorporates much more than the mode of communication that serves as money.

Joe

[Jean Erick]

     Oh, yeah.  I don't mean it as a good in the sence of a general good like goodwill or anything.  My usage of "generic good" is limited to its functioning as a previous real good in exchange transactions, its current market role and NOTHING else.  It is not meant as the generic good of mankind.  Only as the financial medium of exchange in the market.

     As far as the discussion of if the "financial" generic good is "good" for people, that's open for discussion IMHO.  ;-)  Of course, capital being #3 of the four pillars of modern economic growth gives money a pretty good opening statment.

[Graham Wideman]

Bit of a late reply, but...

Your law #1:  It's energy that's conserved, not power.  Which (ironically?) is pretty much at the heart of energy storage -- to allow power NOT to be conserved.

:-)

-- Graham

[Joe Leote]

Graham,

Energy is specified as a system state.

During a work and heat interaction we write the change in stock or levels equation:

W = (Qf - Qi) + (Ef - Ei)

where f denotes a final state and i denotes an initial state associated with a physical process and work W equals the change in thermal energy Qf - Qi plus the change in non-thermal domain energy Ef - Ei. If the change in time is made too small to measure the differential notation is applied:

dW = dQ + dE, for a differential time dt

The Power is the rate of work:

P = dW/dt = dQ/dt + dE/dt

where d/dt is the time-derivative used to specify the instantaneous rate of work, change in thermal energy, and change in the non-thermal domain energy.

Power is conserved in this equation because there is an equal sign and it can be written as a zero-sum equation.

If we specify and measure entropy states during a heat and work interaction, it is observed that entropy in the system and its surroundings always increases, this is written as an inequality and entropy is conserved only for an ideal process and it is generated for an actual process.

Power is conserved
Entropy is generated

Since the Universe is dynamic, not static, I prefer to go with the flow and state the basic laws in flow form, if you want the levels for a process, apply an arbitrary frame of reference, specify some quantities, and take the integral over time to compute those levels associated with a particular process.

Joe

[Joe Leote]

Actually entropy is treated as a level, not a flow, and I have to reconsider my understanding of the meaning of the rate of change of entropy.

So it is probably better to say:

energy is conserved during a natural process
entropy is generated during a natural process

and specification of this as a flow of power and entropic flux requires further thought on my part. Initially, power is any flow of energy that is theoretically involved in a reversible or non-reversible process, while entropic flow is the portion of power that must go from hot to cold and cannot go in reverse, which introduces an information condition on the direction of flow of conserved power.

Joe

[Jim Blair]

"So it is probably better to say:

energy is conserved during a natural process
entropy is generated during a natural process"

Hi,

Yes, because that is exactly correct.  Is there an analogous "economic" statement (or set of them)? 

How about, as a trial balloon:

Wealth is created by any process that re- arranges matter so as to make it more useful to people.

Jim

On 5/9/2012 1:44 PM, Joe Leote wrote:

Actually entropy is treated as a level, not a flow, and I have to reconsider my understanding of the meaning of the rate of change of entropy.

[Jean Erick]

(1)  This topic is off.

(2) It's off because it can genreate further conversation because your post converys only confusion on the subject and that can cause more corrective threads.

(3) Energy is conserved and matter is determined to be energy in this context.

(4) the subject leaves to unanswerable questions: such as:  What happens to all the infra red photons if they don't run into a body?

(5) The best IMHO concept and easiest to understand is that heat goes from hot to cold.  Maxwells's demon.

(6) One of the questions we cannot comprehend is simply the endlessess of space.

 

James

----- Original Message -----

From: Joe Leote

To: understan...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 10:10 AM

Subject: Re: Energy Storage Symposium (Money Comment)

[Jean Erick]

      No.  No.  No.  Entropic flow is not that because heat can never go in reverse, as your wording implies or at least ALLOWS.  It only goes from hot to cold.

Remember Maxwell's demon?

 

James

----- Original Message -----

From: Joe Leote

To: understan...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 11:44 AM

Subject: Re: Energy Storage Symposium (Money Comment)

[Jean Erick]

     No.  I don't like it.  It's questionable to try to make people the center of the universe although here might be a (failing) arguement for it.

Isn't a star an order creating device?  The ordered entities of elements are created there.

And, isn't life itself a slow moving force that creates order?

Entropy as, essentially, the "tally", amount of disorder.

 

James

----- Original Message -----

From: Jim Blair

To: understan...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 5:46 PM

Subject: Re: Energy Storage Symposium (Money Comment)

[Joe Leote]

James,

Right, this is off-topic on money, unless understanding of money in context is improved by general knowledge. Please consult a textbook on thermodynamics for accurate information.

If you can open this link, please read point MP 4..5 at the bottom very carefully:

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/notes/node34.html

where if thermal power (heat flux) goes from hot to cold during a process, if a device capable of extracting work is inserted, the portion of thermal power which converts to work (a reversible change in energy state) is theoretically capable of taking the energy done as work and using it to drive thermal power from cold to hot in a partially reversible cycle.

Therefore I think it is correct to say that a portion of the power developed in the system and surroundings must flow from hot to cold in an irreversible manner, and if we could invent ideal devices, none of the power would be lost as entropy generation (that, in an ideal process all changes in the system and the surroundings are reversible, and a real system at least some of the developed power occurs in an irreversible manner).

One can envision the universe as All Being (Matter-Energy) or All Powerful (Continuous Matter-Energy Transformations) with equal validity, these are two of the three attributes of God I think proposed by Saint Augustine, and I see no conflict with our scientific mythology since we cannot measure the amount of matter-energy or power developed in the whole universe, we just impose a reference frame to assign quantities by making comparisons locally.

Joe

[Jim Blair]

Hi,

Yes heat can go from cold to warm.  At is what AC does to cool you house below the outside temperature.  But doing that requires an energy input (increases your electric bill), and overall, increases the entropy of the universe. 

Maxwell's Demon would  cool your house (he existed) without increasing your electric bill.  But that might not spare you a cost if he demanded payment.  Like maybe your soul ;-)

And I don't see an economic analogy for this.  But I'll look some more ;-)

[Jean Erick]

     The most realiable reality seems to be the stars in the sky.  About second to that is that heat will only go to cold.  It's one of the few absolute staements that

you can get away with.  Any question of it only reveals the ignorance of the questioner.

     We are where we are and we are not going much further.  This is proved by (1) IF any great step forward were made (travel by worm hole for example) it would be made within

500 years. (2) There must be other intelligent biologics in the Universe.  (3)  One of them must be 500 years ahead of us.  (4)  They haven't found a way to say "Hi".

     If you want to understand physics, you've got to kill the cat, Shroedinger's poor analogy which allows all the fringe stuff to be looped in with the Standard Model for the public

to try to sort out.

     As far as understanding economics, I don't.  But then, I don't understand how all these people drive their cars around so much without running into each other a lot more.

I don't understand how the whole thing works so well.

[Jean Erick]

    No, it can't.

 

James

----- Original Message -----

From: Jim Blair

To: understan...@googlegroups.com

[Jim Blair]

"No it can't"

????  What can't?  Air conditioning can't pump heat from your cool house to the warmer outside?  Mine can.

On 5/15/2012 12:33 PM, Jean Erick wrote:

    No, it can't.

 

James

----- Original Message -----

From: Jim Blair

To: understan...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 2:54 PM

Subject: Re: Energy Storage Symposium (Money Comment)

Hi,

Yes heat can go from cold to warm.  That is what AC does to cool you house below the outside temperature.  But doing that requires an energy input (increases your electric bill), and overall, increases the entropy of the universe. 

[Jean Erick]

     And I can carry a hot cup of coffee outside into a snowstorm.  In both cases, the locale of the "heated entity" has changed.  Not the fact that it will, without energy input, get colder.  It will never get hotter on it''s own.  Your thinking has precedence in science in its desire to find a remedy to  this.  It's called "the search for Maxwell's demon", which is a more refined attempt than, say, trying to invent a perpetual motion machine.  But the results are usually the same.  To date, failure.

[Joe Leote]

James,

Scroll down to the heading Reversible Refrigerator at this link:

http://srikant.org/core/node10.html

where it says:

"A refrigerator takes heat from a cold body and delivers the heat to body at higher temperature. This process clearly can never happen spontaneously since this would imply that heat can spontaneously flow from a cold body to a hot body, something that has never been observed, and which would violate the Second Law. An object which is cooler than its environment is in a state of low entropy compared to the environment.Hence to keep a body cooler than its ambient environment's temperature we have to constantly do work. "

Heat does flow from cold to hot in such devices, the Second Law merely states the total entropy in the system and surrounding must increase during the work and heat interaction, which is confirmed by observation. The entropy decrease in the cold space is more than offset by the entropy increase in the overall work and heat interaction that makes work input possible.

Jim is correct and your statements appear to contradict observed facts that make refrigeration and air conditioning possible.

Joe  

[Jean Erick]

     You're not making sence.  Your quote actually supports my position.   If you are questioning a basic law of thermodynamcs, I do not really want to engage in that childish a discussion.  Jim is correct in the context of which he speaks.  But incorrect in his general proclamation.  Heat goes to cold.  The reverse does not happen.  Mr. Maxwell Demon has no known domicile.

     Your mistake is in trying to "nebulize" the idea into abstracts as though it existed far from us.  It exists right with us, everyday in our lives, and it's really quite beautiful.

Our constant companion.  Our essential compass thorugh the, sometimes seemingly chaotic , and illusory, seas of reality.    Odysseus could be a metaphor for one traveling through life without it.

[Joe Leote]

Anyone, apparently with the exception of James, can read a thermodynamics textbook, or take temperature measurements and make personal observations based on measurement and theory, and verify that heat flows from cold to hot in a device called a heat pump or refrigerator. If measurements and calculations are applied properly in the system and surroundings, there is conservation of energy and an increase of entropy, so a heat pump operates within the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

This is off-topic so I merely add my final comments for clarification.

Joe

[Joe Leote]

Jim,

In The Entropy Principle: Thermodynamics for the Unsatisfied, the author introduces a definition of financial accessibility to try to better explain the concept of adiabatic accessibility:

"Financial accessibility: an object Y is financially accessible from an object X, denoted X ~ Y (pronounce "X precedes Y"), if there is a market in which it is possible to exchange X for Y."

I am not sure there is a direct financial application for an entropy function, although this concept of accessibility seems to correspond to what we might call the availability of liquidity or lack thereof for a market exchange. The guy who traded up a paper clip for a house in small steps is demonstrating this principle of financial accessibility where a direct trade is not possible but many small trades add value in steps until in the end paper clip = house plus time and inventive effort in making trades.

In the financial crisis instruments that were liquid and traded frequently became illiquid an unable to exchange, although the causes of such changes in what I think this author describes as financial accessibility are driven by investor psychology, so it would be highly speculative and difficult to describe the system parameters in a mathematical model of any such process.

Joe

[Jean Erick]

          Delusional.

[Joe Leote]

I have here my old textbook from my semester in Thermodynamics, Thermodynamics, Keneth Wark (1983), Chapter 18, Refrigeration Systems, pages 708-742. On page 708-709 it describes a reversed Carnot heat engine, in part:

"A quantity of heat Q(L) is transferred reversibly from a low-temperature source of temperature T(L) to the reversed heat engine. The reversed heat engine operates through a cycle during which net work W is added to the heat engine an a quantity of heat Q(H) is transferred reversibly to a higher-temperature sink of temperature T(H). On the basis of the first law for a closed cyclic process, Q(L) + W = Q(H). From the second law for a totally reversible process it is found that T(H)/T(L) = Q(H)/Q(L). The reversed Carnot heat engine is useful as a standard of comparison because it requires the minimum work input for a given refrigeration effect between two given bodies of fixed temperature."

This whole Chapter is dedicated to showing how machines which transfer heat from cold to hot operate without violating the first or second laws of thermodynamics. This is the conventional wisdom on the subject with which I agree.

Any delusions on the subject discussed above are in full accord with the conventional wisdom. One who says heat can never flow from cold to hot, without further qualification, has made a statement which contradicts the conventional wisdom.

My apologies to those who find this topic a distraction.

Joe

[Jean Erick]

     If you want to relate entropy to financial concepts, as complexity is the opposite of entropy, the change from the more complex distribution of resources to the more simplistic transfer of money from the many to the few is entropic.  The complexity of distribution is simplified, the entropy of complexity increases.  More generally, the decision making process relative to rules and distributon of resources is simplified, entropic.  Freedom is complex, tryanny entropic.

Any more questions?  Or do you wish to further confuse the simple?

[Joe Leote]

... but what about chaos?

Chaos, Complexity, and Entropy (17 page pdf):
http://necsi.edu/projects/baranger/cce.pdf

;-)

Joe

[Graham Wideman]

Hi Joe,

Again replying very late here to your rationale for claiming a "conservation of power" of May 9th.  If you declare that
0 = dW/dt - dQ/dt + dE/dt  implies a "conservation", OK fair enough. However, the sense in which the word "conservation" is used in the Law of Conservation of Energy, is in the sense of the total system energy not changing over time.  Ie: conservation used that way implies constancy through a passage of time.  Clearly that doesn't apply to any of the variable in the power equation just quoted.

But really that's just nit-picking.  I'm quite intrigued with where you are going with this, and am about to look at the chaos and complexity paper. :-)

-- Graham

[Jean Erick]

     Let me remind you of the context of the siutation.  You used "entropy" in a statment, that in its construction allowed, and in my opinion implied that, cold could flow to heat.

This is against the basic law of thermodynamics.  What you are going on about is secondary situations.  And I agree with everyone of them.

    But when you're talking about something like this, you need to be careful of your words.  Which context are you talking about? The exact opposite occurs according to the context.   My point was that there are a lot of people who are not familiar with many subjects.  I was bringing out the point that your statement, as it was, could be confusing

because of the diametrically opposed contexts.  Using the entropy word tends to place it in the more basic context in which heat flows to cold.  In fact, Von Baeyer wrote a whole little book on the issue titled "Warmth Disperses, Time Passes" .  In which I page referenced several interesting issues in a note that I kept.  The basic law of thermodynamics is the important point.  Maxwell's Demon is strong evidence of that.  Do you even know Maxwell's Demon?

     This has application to economics as my first concern was the vocabulary and language of economics and how it is confusing.  It is a political statment in that confusion is also the aspect of a shell game.  Confusion is the essential problem in economics.  That is why I have, from the beginning, tried to express things in simple, un sophisticated, but accurate terms and urged others to do the same.  I have a problem with your art because I will not question it.  I can only offer the thought of experimenting with conciseness.  But, you are the artist, and I cannot question that.  You're Wadsworthian in output.  I'm essentially, always asking if you could experiment in haiku.

[Jean Erick]

     Didn't read all the paper.  Saved for later.  Excellant.

     What about it?  Chaos, IMHO, is that which takes the apparently random and demostrates order, if there.

     We are talking about the polar entity, order.  You can have a complex order or a simplistic order.  Entropy is a measure of the simplicity end of the pole..

In some situations, chaos might reveal a complexity, a lack of entropy.  I see it as coming in from the side, if it appears.

The order of democratic distribution of resources is complex.  The order of the distribution of resources, probably since the invention of money, has been simplified.

However, you  have two dynamics working.  The classic rising tide that lifts all boats increases complexity.  But lately, all the littler boats are leaking to much, decreasing complexity.  The rising tide means more products are there to be distributed but the leaking boats means a dip in distribution.

But also, as Shiller said, the subject of the study, humans, change once you study them.  "Slaves" need the promice of freedom to be motivated to accomplish complex

tasks.  This is a requirement for modern GDP growth and the belief in it must be maintaned to sustain  that growth.  Or, question the need for growth.  As it comes down to the thoughts in peoples minds, perhaps chaos could contribute to finding consistancy in this apparent ......... chaos.

     You haven't missed information theory have you?  I know even less about it than chaos or entropy but it seems to aspire to cover everything.

[Joe Leote]

Graham,

This is a long 213 page pdf.

Energy and Ecology:
http://stijnbruers.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/thesis.pdf

on page 12 it describes life (ecology) on earth as an open system with a large entropy production EP far from thermodynamic equilibrium, the EP is the time-derivative or rate of entropy generation for the Sun-earth system.

This is a web page on the power and entropy in what the author calls the Circle of Life:

http://www.digital-recordings.com/publ/publife.html

These references are very close to what I tried to describe as nature being a flow of power at every instant of time, the power is conserved at each instant, a portion of the power flow in any system and its surroundings is always observed to go from hot to cold which may calculate over time as the increase of entropy in the known or observable universe.

I think the reference on energy and ecology would have analogous application to the study of a stable full employment economy existing in relative harmony with the ecosystem, if humanity continues to confuse money and investment with prosperity in the long term, it will cause man-made "natural" disasters such as the prophets warned against in scripture, and what appears to be exponentially growing wealth without limit will simply become a road to greater misery and ruin. However even non-money cultures have had problems with loss of population carrying capacity (large scale agricultural failure ruined many an ancient empire).

Joe

[Jean Erick]

     "stable full employment economy existing in relative harmony with the ecosystem".  Hmmmm, yes, more stable previous to the 1600 increase in GDP growth.

   Ahhh, the good old days of slavery and fuedalism.   Nothing new (just the same damn thing day after rotten day).  ;-)

     Before, I had not the burden of deciding what to do with myself.  What an anxiety riven life we lie.  What to do this afternoon?  Our concern echoed in the words of the great President Carter,  "What will we do?  What will we do?"  My friend came up with the greatest answer. "We'll elect somebody who has an answer.  That's what we'll do!".  :-)

 

James

----- Original Message -----

From: Joe Leote

To: understan...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 12:39 PM

Subject: Re: Energy Storage Symposium (Money Comment)

[Joe Leote]

Am I to infer that the only options available in your imagination are GDP growth causing freedom and liberation or a return to no GDP growth with slavery and feudalism?

Because I do not limit my imagination to those options.

Joe

[Jean Erick]

     Well, about, yes.  But I think it's difficult to project because we're probably talking about whole different contexts that may arise, mainly due to possible entries, as before,

of new technology.  And, it goes back to the classic of how a people should be ruled, a discussion which I will readily admit I am not prepared well to engage in.  The only addendum is that I don't think anybody else is either. 

     When I, early on, read Orlando Patterson's "Freedom in the Tradition of Western Culture" opinion that freedom was --necessary-- to motivate the slave to accomplish the complex tasks provided by new technology, I surmised that if a time came where these tasks became "commoditized", no longer complex, that the need for freedom would also cease.

But then Bersteins's "Birth of Plenty" brought in the issue of freedom being needed so people would continue to accomplish the complex tasks neccessary to maintain modern GDP growth.

     And, I tend to try to see us as a work in progress.  Something being created.  Who can predict that results of that? We need to start measuring GDP in terms of constructive

endeavors, not just money spent.  A lot is spent on cleaning up externalities.