US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
Time-Energy Accounting and Privatization (english)
31 Oct 2002
Modified: 12:01:59 PM
Another PSA from a UFO on how to save Earth!
jon.jpg
Another PSA from a UFO on how to save Earth!
David,

Ah ha! Another trick question. Good. Last time you threw us something about "conservative" media puppets like Pat Buchanan:

http://egroups.com/group/Time-Energy-Accounting/message/218

Now you're obliquely putting forth another potential divide-and-conquer issue regarding a number of more serious issues such as "privatization", global commerce and mega-hydropower all of which are resolved quite efficiently and democratically by the Time-Energy Accounting system (TEA).

http://treasurynet.org

http://egroups.com/group/Time-Energy-Accounting

Rather than tossing us these issues in such an oblique manner, why don't you simply ask clear questions? Are you with the "good guys" or the "bad guys"?

The example you put forth is an excellent one, but it does not affect the basic simplicity of the TEA system that anyone can understand.

If Americans are buying and consuming mega-hydropower from Canadians (eg: Hydro-Quebec), and a group of dubiously elected politicians sell Canadian "public utilities" to a less-transparent corporation such as Siemens (a "private corporation" that's "publicly traded"), how does the TEA system deal with the situation?

Is that a fair re-phrasing of your non-question?

The replies to this question have already been answered in previous posts:

http://egroups.com/group/Time-Energy-Accounting/message/187

http://egroups.com/group/Time-Energy-Accounting/message/200

But let's clarify. Again.

First, as previously stated, when resident-citizens from one locality are trading TEA energy dividends with resident-citizens from another locality, the TEA dollars ($1 = one renewable kWh) are issued at the point of production but shared 50/50 between the accounts of both local TEA treasuries of the respective resident-citizens.

In the example to which you referred, of all the local TEA dollars issued in someplace like Boston where most consumers are indirectly investing a portion of their resources by purchasing some electricity from Hydro-Quebec, the consumer-investors in Boston receive one TEA dollar for each kWh they purchase from the production of the Hydro-Quebec mega-hydropower facility.

(There are also other places both local and non-local where Bostonians can earn plenty of TEA energy dividends.)

The local TEA treasuries (participating local resident-citizens) where the mega-hydropower facility is located will become quite wealthy, since a large amount of renewable energy is being harnessed in their localities.

The same goes for any locality that invests in the harnessing of renewable energy, perhaps resulting in a demographic transition in which citizens choose to reside where the most renewable energy is harnessed.

One of the benefits of such a demographic transition is that less energy will be wasted in the transmission or transportation of energy.

And since the potentially most efficient means of harvesting energy is with dispersed photovoltaics (PV) - as you might notice by playing with the "Local TEA Dollars" spreadsheet - as the costs of PV decline, it's more likely that demographic trends will follow a similar pattern of decentralization.

It's no coincidence that oil conglomerates such as BP and Shell are buying (monopolizing?) the PV industry.

So, even with a human population of 10 billion folks in 2020, the world can become a more efficient but less crowded place!

There is no shortage of solar energy, land or water.

There's simply a shortage of intelligent systems like TEA - to deal with the crisis caused by obsolete notions and institutions.

Second, returning to other issues implied by your non-question, how does the TEA system affect the "privatization" of public resources?

Will non-local (transnational) investors and owners of such facilities benefit from the TEA system to the disadvantage of local or national owners? Or visa versa?

Perhaps the TEA system makes such divisive issues obsolete, since the fruits of production are shared 50/50 between non-local investor-consumers and local investor-producers (renewable-energy harvesters).

What happens, for instance, when transnational investors purchase stock, bonds, futures, options or other currencies in a "private corporation" such as Siemens who might buy a "public utility"?

Assuming the corporation is efficiently managed, the transnational investors will benefit because they can indirectly earn more TEA dollars.

And the same holds true for any "public utility" whoever "owns" the facility that's harnessing renewable energy will benefit the most.

Therefore, Canadians and others who are concerned about transnational corporations buying public utilities at unfair prices might want to investigate from who their politicians and other public servants are receiving bribes (such as campaign contributions, unbalanced corporate-media exposure, and offshore bank accounts).

Bribery is illegal. Although there are too many laws and regulations, some of them make sense, such as US Code, Title 18, Chapter 11, Section 201.

Eventually, as the TEA system progresses and everyone benefits, such issues will become obsolete.

Who will accept over-leveraged, unsustainable and unfair currencies in the future? Well, such monetary instruments, including Federal Reserve dollars, are becoming increasingly rejected by citizens all around the world.

So it makes sense, even for world banksters, to get with the program and accelerate the implementation of reasonable systems such as Time-Energy Accounting.

Third, concerning the issue of mega-hydropower facilities that have caused social and ecological damage when built, the TEA system accepts existing mega-hydroelectric plants, but rejects any new or additional mega-hydroelectric projects.

Does that adequately answer the implications of your non-question(s)?

Best Regards,

Jon

*************

http://egroups.com/group/jpchance - United States President.

http://egroups.com/group/Time-Energy-Accounting - TEA.

http://bfi.org/grunch_of_giants.htm - R. Buckminster Fuller.

http://whatreallyhappened.com - CENSORED.

http://vialls.homestead.com - Exposing Media Disinformation.

http://www.awea.org - Prosperity, Not War & Pollution.

http://treasurynet.org - Time + Energy = Wealth.
See also:
egroups.com/group/jpchance
Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.

Comments

Correction (english)
31 Oct 2002
When consumer-investors purchase renewable energy from outside their locality, they share the issued TEA energy dividends 50/50 with the non-local producer.

Therefore, in the example to which you referred, of all the local TEA dollars issued in someplace like Boston where most consumers are indirectly investing a portion of their resources by purchasing some electricity from Hydro-Quebec, the consumer-investors in Boston receive ONE-HALF ($0.50) TEA dollar for each kWh they purchase from the production of the Hydro-Quebec mega-hydropower facility.
See also:
egroups.com/group/jpchance