Not The Grub Street Journal

Exegesis Hermeneutics Flux Capacitor of Truthiness




This is a very interesting comparison widget for Gasoline prices across the world.

I was just watching this video on Comparison of fuel costs for EV’s and ICE Vehicles


And the Stark contrast between US Gas Prices over European ones struck me.

us. 2.91 per gallon
Sweden 6.42 per gallon
Germany 5.85 per gallon
Russia 2.80 per gallon
China 3.96 per gallon

The Affordability ratios are very interesting
1.63 % US and 14.81 % China
% of income spent is also interesting
1.93% US and 0.49% China

Who gets What from a Gallon of Oil.
OECD’S average
31% Crude Price 20% Industry Margin 49% Tax.

this excellent paper at the House of Commons online library the other day.

15. Taxation comprises three fundamental economic parts:

l Creation of the medium of taxation and issue into the economy

l Distribution of the medium of taxation through the economy

l Collection of the medium of taxation

17. Modern taxation systems are still based around the creation, distribution and collection of tokens, but the tokens now take electronic rather than physical form. These tokens are bookkeeping entries in the banking system. The structure of the taxation system and the economy it controls is determined by the rules under which these electronic bookkeeping tokens are created, distributed and collected. Coins and notes are still issued in small quantity but are subsidiary to the banking system’s bookkeeping entries.

19. “Contemporary governments grant the exclusive power to issue the medium of taxation to a state-sanctioned banking cartel. The banking cartel comprises a central bank and private member banks. The central bank is responsible for price-fixing, information sharing, promoting member interests and preventing member defaults. Serving the public interest is not a primary goal of a central bank. The cartel holds the exclusive power to set the price of and issue the medium of taxation. Governments generally prohibit the issue of alternative media for exchange and mandate payments of taxes only in the cartel-issued medium.”


52. Development of the tax system has been constrained by political reality and driven by the demands of vested interests in finance and real estate. The fundamental principles of tax policy should explicitly incorporate the money system and the welfare system. The tax system is not fit for purpose and is beyond repair. It should be replaced by an efficient, neutral and distortion-free system based around clearly defined recurrent payments from owners of land, immovable property and natural resources based on contract law. Means-tested welfare should be replaced by a Citizens’ Dividend distributing the financial surpluses of government arising from such reforms.

53. The transition to a new, principled tax system should be on an “opt-in” basis where people can choose to permanently leave the old system when they can benefit from so doing. The effect of such a transition would be an rapid and dramatic revival in economic performance without battling political headwinds.

54. The principles outlined here fully meet all the objectives of the OECD tax report and the Mirrlees Review. They meet Smith’s canons of taxation and adhere to orthodox and common heterodox academic analysis. They are comprehensible and achievable.

January 2011

Carbon Taxation.

It seems to me that The importance of Taxing Carbon is being treated as an elephant in the room.
Fossil Fuels are hugely important and will remain so for at least the next 50 years or so.

The debate is hampered by the political cowardice of our Elite owned political Class who are incapåable of calling a spade a spade, so much easier to talk in the Semi Religious riddles of Global warming.

Regardless of Global Warming and Environmental issues, it is it seems to be important to be honest about what resources there are and how they are applied

That is why I think that the Embedded energy concepts in this paper which I have posted before are so important.

2 thoughts on “Carbon, The Elephant in the room but not for the reasons Greta Thinks. Oil and Tax. Taxation and the Banking System.

  1. rogerglewis says:

    drtimmorgan on February 15, 2020 at 3:06 pm said:
    Just to restate my position on this, the economy is an energy system, in which nothing with any economic utility at all can be produced without energy.

    Money has no intrinsic worth, but commands value only as ‘claim’ on the products of the real economy. Its only function is as a medium of exchange.

    Fulfilling this function requires that two preconditions are met:

    1. There is something for which money can be exchanged

    2. The kind of money in question is accepted by all parties as a medium of exchange

    Money (in any form) given to someone adrift in a lifeboat has no value, because it fails the first test.

    Somebody arriving from Mars with pockets full of Martian Zogs would find his money useless, because it fails the second test.

    Therefore, there is no monetary solution to the deterioration in prosperity caused by a fall in the supply of surplus energy.

    The authorities do not understand (or, at any rate, admit) this. They are using monetary manipulation to prop up inflated asset prices. The only reason why they haven’t been called on this is that we cannot monetise asset ownership, i.e. sell all stocks, bonds and properties and turn them into cash.

    In the future, the use of money manipulation might be extended into, for example:

    A. Financing government spending as the revenue base erodes

    B. Subsidising fossil fuel production

    C. Subsidising investment in renewables

    D. Helping the victims of falling prosperity

    ANY of these uses would be inflationary, quite possibly to the point at which the credibility of fiat currencies is destroyed.

    This means that the only way to achieve objectives A-D without destroying the currency has to involve redistribution.

    Reply ↓

    on February 15, 2020 at 3:41 pm said:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Redistribution of What to who and by which means?
    Energy is Ubiquitous, yet Value is an abstract concept and there are experiential values which exceed their Energy input where an abstract value, such as a monetary unit is allowed to reflect the Market determined price.
    The fact is that there are different levels of needs and wants and over an above fundamental survival requirements, Say 2500 Calories a day including embodied energy for Shelter and dietary requirements.
    What are the absolute bands of energy requirements, how much energy is Wasted and how much-embodied energy can be re-cycled that is currently wasted all have to factor into any ongoing Energy Based Distribution system and energy-based system for determining and energy-based into of account?

    What is the problem with having a different type of Currency, why does Destruction of the existing unfit for purpose system have to be taken as read?

    There have been successive efforts since the Nixon shock to replace the current international FInance model, that we are moving to a Multi-Polar world seems an inescapable conclusion, with all the potential problems this represents for the Dollar centric hegemony.

    If it ain’t broke don’t fix it is always a good maxim but if a new design is called for to replace an obsolete system then everything is on the table.

    I personally reject your four-point example and the inevitability of your conclusion Tim.

    The world has tremendous potential as does the industrial capacity and also cultural and technological potentials of current technology. Of course, there are fundamental changes which need to be made The single biggest problem is the mispricing inherent in the financialised late-stage capitalism which has morphed already into Fascism, otherwise known as Neo-Liberalism.

    Pierre Joseph Proudhon proposed a reform to banking which was quite simply to abolish the private monopoly on the creation of Currency as debt at interest. Peter Kropotkin describes Prouhdond Simple idea and its effect as follows,
    Now Proudhon advocated a society without government, and
    used the word Anarchy to describe it. Proudhon repudiated,
    as is known, all schemes of Communism, according to which
    mankind would be driven into communistic monasteries or
    barracks, as also all the schemes of state or state-aided socialism
    which were advocated by Louis Blanc and the Collectivists. When
    he proclaimed in his first memoir on property that ” Property
    is theft,” he meant only property in its present, Roman-law,
    sense of ” right of use and abuse ” ; in property-rights, on the other
    hand, understood in the limited sense of possession, he saw the
    best protection against the encroachments of the state. At the
    same time he did not want violently to dispossess the present
    owners of land, dwelling-houses, mines, factories and so on. He
    preferred to attain the same end by rendering capital incapable
    of earning interest; and this he proposed to obtain by means of
    a national bank, based on the mutual confidence of all those who
    are engaged in production, who would agree to exchange among
    themselves their produces at cost-value, by means of labour
    cheques representing the hours of labour required to produce
    every given commodity. Under such a system, which Proudhon
    described as ” Mutuellisme,” all the exchanges of services would be
    strictly equivalent. Besides, such a bank would be enabled to
    lend money without interest, levying only something like 1 %,
    or even less, for covering the cost of administration. Every one
    being thus enabled to borrow the money that would be required
    to buy a house, nobody would agree to pay any more a yearly
    rent for the use of it. A general ” social liquidation ” would
    thus be rendered easy, without violent expropriation. The same
    applied to mines, railways, factories and so on.

    In a society of this type the state would be useless. The chief
    relations between citizens would be based on free agreement and
    regulated by mere account keeping. The contests might be
    settled by arbitration. A penetrating criticism of the state and
    all possible forms of government, and a deep insight into all
    economic problems, were well-known characteristics of Proudhon’s

  2. rogerglewis says:

    rogerglewis on February 15, 2020 at 11:55 am said:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Meanwhile the Boundaries of Knowledge Advance.
    And in many cases are suppressed.

    Reply ↓

    on February 15, 2020 at 11:56 am said:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation. I made this video available with English Subtitles the original version in English is not available anywhere on the internet?

    rogerglewis on February 15, 2020 at 12:10 pm said:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Reply ↓

%d bloggers like this: