>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^marbles:
Is this what passes for financial experts nowadays? Outside of Rickards, the rest are fucking dis-info tools.
The Ben Bernanke said gold isn't money. He also said in response to Why do people buy gold?: "As protection against of what we call tail risks: really, really bad outcomes". Bad outcomes like... destroying an economy by design?
Meanwhile, If Central Banks Believe in Paper Money Why Are They Loading Up On Gold?
Also former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan disagrees with Bernanke. 2 years ago: "What is fascinating is the extent to which gold still holds reign over the financial system as the ultimate source of payment". (This is when gold was around $1,000/ounce)
In 1971, gold was $35/ounce. Now it's $1700/ounce. So it only took 40 years for the dollar to lose 97% 98% (edit) of it's value against gold.
It doesn't take an idiot to understand that if you save a $100 bill and forty years later it only has the purchasing power of $3 $2--that something is seriously fucked up with our monetary system.
You don't like gold? No problem. Just get rid of the economic central planning and let there be competing currencies. Gold will ALWAYS win in a a free market.

Rubbish. Gold has nothing but perceived value. In real terms, it is useless. If the world economy completely destabilised tomorrow, gold would be worthless. It's time we started basing our economy on the the real cost of things, energy. Ultimately, everything has an energy cost. Today energy is cheap, mostly because of fossil fuels. When energy starts becoming much more expensive, that will be the single greatest economic change in history.


The US dollar has nothing but perceived value. In real terms, it is useless. If the world economy completely destabilized tomorrow, the US dollar would be worthless.

Gold has nothing but perceived value. In real terms, it is useless. If the world economy completely destabilized tomorrow, gold would be worthless.

According to history, one of these statements is true, the other is laughably false.

So what do you measure you energy cost in?

>> ^marbles:

Is this what passes for financial experts nowadays? Outside of Rickards, the rest are fucking dis-info tools.
The Ben Bernanke said gold isn't money. He also said in response to Why do people buy gold?: "As protection against of what we call tail risks: really, really bad outcomes". Bad outcomes like... destroying an economy by design?
Meanwhile, If Central Banks Believe in Paper Money Why Are They Loading Up On Gold?
Also former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan disagrees with Bernanke. 2 years ago: "What is fascinating is the extent to which gold still holds reign over the financial system as the ultimate source of payment". (This is when gold was around $1,000/ounce)
In 1971, gold was $35/ounce. Now it's $1700/ounce. So it only took 40 years for the dollar to lose 97% 98% (edit) of it's value against gold.
It doesn't take an idiot to understand that if you save a $100 bill and forty years later it only has the purchasing power of $3 $2--that something is seriously fucked up with our monetary system.
You don't like gold? No problem. Just get rid of the economic central planning and let there be competing currencies. Gold will ALWAYS win in a a free market.


Rubbish. Gold has nothing but perceived value. In real terms, it is useless. If the world economy completely destabilised tomorrow, gold would be worthless. It's time we started basing our economy on the the real cost of things, energy. Ultimately, everything has an energy cost. Today energy is cheap, mostly because of fossil fuels. When energy starts becoming much more expensive, that will be the single greatest economic change in history.

Eh, the only good parts are the 'energizing' intro and the 'pure energy' sample. Everything else in this should be cut or replaced by something else.

If only it were that simple. Water is not the best source of hydrogen since it only has a measly 2 hydrogen atoms per molecule, so the source of hydrogen will more than likely still come from sources that will pollute.

"best" source really depends on what your criteria are. H2O is plentiful, and you basically get out the same amount of energy you put in when you de/re-construct water. H2 is a good energy storage system, not a good fuel. While it may be expedient to externalize the energy cost by using hydrocarbons it is not "better" or "cheaper" in a full cycle sense.

My solar cell comment was not pulled out of thin air(or water), a H2 fuel cell prototype car was built more then a decade ago by a professor in California. The car had a body made of molded solar cells (we have better/cheaper tech now) and was able to do about 300mi/day in sunny California, with the only material in/output being tap/pure water. I know I don't average 300mi/day, I would never even need to plug it in.

I think the obsfucation of where the H2 comes from is really the issue, and the fact that much of what is currently used comes from natural-gas (as opposed to super-natural gas?) means that this is not really a significant technological step.

The only thing electric cars need is better energy storage, everything else already blows internal combustion out of the water. H2 from hydrocarbons just allows that technology to be ignored while politicians can still claim they made the auto industry make "zero emission" vehicles.