Hi Sergio,

your background is perfect for these questions ...!

Your reply is: "The problem I see with using energy invested to measure the value of a good produced is that you can spend a ton of energy producing something nobody wants, and you can invest very little energy on something everybody wants, but only you can produce."

My answer is: It is not painting the total picture just thinking about this one given product - produced with an enormous or a minimal amount of energy.

You have to put in the calculation about the total amount of the virtual slaves an society used for - well, having a comfortable life.

The point is - and this is the very sensitive argument in my theory - that all value is not absolute but relative to the total value in that given economy.

The huge problem in following this thought is that the old thinking in money units is so commonly used that it is difficult to move out of this viewpoint.

Think about a society with 100 people. All have to eat one meal a day - and working as a farmer for getting one meal with one day of work each day.

Now put in an artist painting a beautiful painting.

The artist is not able to work for getting one meal per day. He needs to change his painting for a meal produced by another farmer. But that farmer is only producing one meal per day - and needs one meal also.

100 people say: Yes, a beautiful painting! ... It is worth a million ... (of what?).

But now put the painting on the market: What will be the price of it in meals?

Since no farmer has one meal in stock ... each farmer had to starve one day just to pay one meal for the painting ...

unless the invention of a machine is done, using external energy for helping the farmers "becoming more productive" ... and set them into a position of producing (by lots of virtual slave work added as a substitute for their own body work) ... more than just one meal a day.

Then you have meals for paying the artist in meals.

Unless you have nothing to change for - the artwork is worthless.

And you second remark: "As an example, you can spend a lot of energy manufacturing a 30 meter tall rock sphere, but nobody will want to buy it. How much is it worth? Nothing.

On the other hand, an artist could spend very little energy creating a work of art and sell it expensively."

Well. You are right - but I think this is just a microeconomic phenomenom which brings the answer: Would you let your virtual slaves work for nothing? Would you decide as a boss of all these energy slaves that they have to build a pyramid? Maybe - if you want to have a pyramid. But just digging sand for nothing?

I just think it is the microeconomic concurrency which avoids such waste of energy invested.

The other way round: If you have an artwork ... well, you need others able to change other stuff for your stuff. Money is just making it easier to change the stuff - but at the end you can not come out of the real world with money in your pocket and the shopping list at hand.

If your precious artwork is the only recious thing in the world ... you will still think it is precious - but will you get someone to change it for a meal?

That is shown in wars many times ....

My point is: Measure the total size of an economy - grown by some more work driven by a Keynes Argument of whatever argument - and you have the total size of that real expression of an eoconomy.

The total value of that economy is equal to this measured size.

The total amount of floating money must be equal to this also - if the money is not covered in some small part fraction markets.

Does this make it more clear?

Regards,

Olaf