The UK's first Energiesprong homes

[kenneal - lagger]

Just a quote from the Capital and Conflict blog (my bold)

The corruption or debasement of currency is seen as the action of an empire or civilisation that is in decline, or even about to collapse. The Roman Empire’s debasement of its money (currencies such as the denarius and sestertius) in the lead up to its total ruin is a classic example.

The declining value of fiat currency due to inflation is seen by some as the modern equivalent of this. Our currencies are being debased, but not literally in terms of a lower gold or silver content, but because they are created by the stroke of a banker’s pen.

Just to emphasise that it's not just me who thinks that *ankers make most of our new money at no cost to themselves.

[vtsnowedin]

Just a quote from the Capital and Conflict blog (my bold)

The corruption or debasement of currency is seen as the action of an empire or civilisation that is in decline, or even about to collapse. The Roman Empire’s debasement of its money (currencies such as the denarius and sestertius) in the lead up to its total ruin is a classic example.

The declining value of fiat currency due to inflation is seen by some as the modern equivalent of this. Our currencies are being debased, but not literally in terms of a lower gold or silver content, but because they are created by the stroke of a banker’s pen.

Just to emphasise that it's not just me who thinks that *ankers make most of our new money at no cost to themselves.

The problem is not that bankers create money through fractional reserve banking ,which is in fact one way the money supply grows, it is that you think that the practice is evil or a fraud. It works fine and is just the way it is. nothing evil about it.

[kenneal - lagger]

If a government wants some money why should they pay a banker for it? It's not the banks money, it's the governments money so why should they borrow it from a bank? The bank doesn't own the money before they lend it because it doesn't exist.

If money is to be created it should be created by the government and the banks should buy it from the government and then lend it out. It is evil that bankers should be the only people who can create money and be able to profit from that creation. They literally get something for nothing.

If you really do believe "It works fine and is just the way it is. nothing evil about it." you really have been brainwashed.

Say I was the only person in the US who could make new money, would you object to coming to me for it? I suspect that you would object, and very strongly too. It is no different from a banker charging you for money.

[vtsnowedin]

The only money the government should own is that in the treasury for current operations and future obligations. The rest belongs to us the citizens and the governments role should be limited to regulating the banks to prevent excess and monopolies. The farmers ,miners and factory owners and workers are creating money every day. It is not just the bankers. The bankers don't get something for nothing. They risk the money and have to absorb (or should have to) the losses when lenders go bankrupt. Properly vetting and administrating loans has to be done and it is not nothing.

[RenewableCandy]

The farmers and all are working and creating value, not actual money. If they create their value - their goods and services - and there's no-one to buy it, because there's not enough money in circulation, then the whole system's in trouble.

[kenneal - lagger]

......... The rest belongs to us the citizens

So why should we have to pay a *anker for what is rightfully ours?

The rest of your quote is just your strange idea of how a nation should work. And if you look at how it is working for a very large number of your compatriots it is not doing very well at all.

You would do well to reads the full article that Candy referenced above.

[vtsnowedin]

The farmers and all are working and creating value, not actual money. If they create their value - their goods and services - and there's no-one to buy it, because there's not enough money in circulation, then the whole system's in trouble.

Value equals wealth. money is just a medium of exchange. Now that nobody is on a gold (or silver ) standard there is no possibility of there not being enough money.

[woodburner]

But what about energiesprong houses?

[vtsnowedin]

But what about energiesprong houses?

Nice idea except for the cost per unit which makes it a non starter. Any unbiased cost- benefit analysis will send you back to the drawing board.

[woodburner]

A straw bale house would be good, but I don’t have the space, and I’m too old to take on the enterprise.

[emordnilap]

If money is to be created it should be created by the government

Yes. A government controlled by people, not bankers.

[kenneal - lagger]

But what about energiesprong houses?

Nice idea except for the cost per unit which makes it a non starter. Any unbiased cost- benefit analysis will send you back to the drawing board.

Any "Any unbiased cost- benefit analysis " carried out at the moment completely discounts the effects on the climate and environment so can it truly said to be "unbiased"? If you add in climate effects you get a very different analysis and a properly insulated house becomes a massive benefit.

Also if you add in a proper analysis of future energy costs and the costs of revisiting the insulation levels to upgrade them at a later date you come out with a different answer. The economic level of insulation has changed over the years so that the economic level at the design stage is less than the economic level by the time you come to build the structure! What price economics? I have been specifying levels of insulation well over the "economic" levels for over forty years now and my clients are much better off than they would have been if they had followed economists and builders advice. They have also been much more comfortable over those years.

Any truly unbiased cost-benefit analysis will send you straight off to the the build site.

[woodburner]

Your clients I suspect are pretty well off financially too.

[kenneal - lagger]

No, not at all. Most are just ordinary people who wanted an extension or small house built. The better off are more difficult to persuade because they feel that they can afford to pay high fuel bills or they want a very large house to massage their egos and then can't afford the slight increase in cost to insulate properly! Twats!!

[vtsnowedin]

Saw a front page of the Star where no snow on the roof means there is Hash in the Attic. Now there is a place where some insulation would have provided a handsome return on their investment.