Spare energy in static systems versus economic

evolution and the need for expansion

Ove Aigner Haukenes
October 28, 2007

Abstract
The way things work today, especially in an uncontrolled, uncondi-
tionally free market as in the U.S., it results in the fact that a business
has to expand to exist. It does not have the opportunity to balance its
production in a way that keeps it alive, but not growing. This is how
economy works on microscale in the U.S. which reflects how the whole
country works economically on macroscale, and thus why the effect is
more explicit in the U.S. than other countries.
In effect, this means that as long as the U.S. is expanding it will
continue to have economical growth, but if it starts to stagnate or to have
a negative growth it will result in an economic crisis.

1 The dependence between need for expansion

and BNP
I use the country’s BNP as a measurement for change in production, and deduce
the effects from that.
As long as there is a demand for products, the production will be on a rise,
and businesses will grow since people want the products. This will result in
that the BNP of the country will rise, and since there always will be a bigger
demand than production, the dollar will also rise, because it will be needed
inside the country. Every dollar that exists will reflect more value relative to
other currency since their country doesn’t have a need to sell out (other then
the things that are set up as international businesses).
But the catastrophic effect here is that more and more people will have more
and more money. There will be a bigger amount of money sum sumarum (even
though the wealth will be very centralized) in the country. It will end up with an
unrealistic amount of money present compared to production, and therefore the
dollar will be less worth, unless it is spent! If it is spent it will not be a static
value that will diminish the value of the dollar, but it will be an investment
that will lead to an increase in the growth of the BNP, and the wealth of the
country. And hence cause a rise in the Dollar. Of course, that is a very short
term solution for how to solve the problem.

1
1.1 the U.S. budget
Lets look at the U.S. budget: an immense amount of money is being spent on
military budgets. It is a demand that is being fulfilled, and always demanding
more. This has been the case since WWII, and that has been the basis for growth
through the whole period of the Cold War. Since 1989, suddenly there has been
an enormous cut in where to use money because of the end of the weapon race.
Consequently there will suddenly be an enormous amount of money present in
the states that there is no use for! And hence, no value. Money is like anything
else... if nobody needs it there’s no value in it. It is just an abstraction from
food. If everybody has food, you cannot trade a sack of wheat for an axe. You
will have to do something else, or have exceptionally good food. But again,
somebody has so want it.
In the end that will cause that the dollar looses value, thereby leaving people
with less money. But production will still be high, a lot of things will be pro-
duced that nobody can buy, which will cause them to sell cheap and so diminish
the BNP of the country. This again will make the dollar even weaker (inflation
increases), people have even less value for their money, demand will sink even
more and BNP will sink again. Because of international trade there will be
necessary to print up more money since the need for all the basic necessities
produced in other countries still need the same value as before to continue, and
the Dollar is weakened, even though this will weaken the dollar even further.
There will be a self-enhancing effect that eventually will make the economy
collapse unless there is something to turn the tendency around.
The interesting thing here is: Where is the point of growth of BNP relative to
the size of BNP which leads towards a situation where it is physically impossible
to spend all the money inside ones own country? There is a limit for how fast
it is possible to spend money on defensive military activity. Sooner or later
there will be a point where a country has to expand itself to make room for
new demands and further trade to satisfy its BNP, and, last but not least: a
war will be an extremely effective way to create an instant demand, and hence
a rapid change in a situation. There is no better way to create work for people,
have demands up, have a rising production, and be sure that everything that is
produced actually is destroyed so that further production is secured. One CAN
never satisfy the market, because it is destructive. For every square meter of
bombed infrastructure there will be a market for big companies to expand their
business, and thus surviving and expanding 1 . As an example: the rights for
building up the infrastructure and phone systems in Iraq were sold to different
companies before they bombed. Its not even being done discretely! 2
The problem is that in a static system, as the earth actually is; an internally
variable system of a static amount of energy in which you cannot have a real
profit within the system self. Stockpiled energy, and also stockpiled money, has
to be invested in its own system for it not to decrease the value it represents.
1 This is intersting with the knowledge that most of the top politicians in th ve US have

been or are key persons in big corporations: Dick Cheney: Former CEO for HalliBurton, a
war supply company which has quadrippeled its value and size since 2001, Bill Clinton, former
Wall Street Banker, The Bush family: Have several big oilcompanies, and close business to
f.x. the Bin Laden family etc. etc.
2 Another interesting, but less relevant in this context, fact, is that people in the Senate

that had ownership in the companies that got the deals had almost $500 mill. in personal
gain from the deals

2
If a country has a lot of energy, it will be cheap. If it has little, it will be
expencive. If it sells out half of its energy in the summer, it will have less in the
winter when it’s realy needed, and everyone is willing to pay more for it, and
the electic companies will make a huge profit from doing this energy-scam om
the people, until they start to react to the theft.

1.2 Is there an alternative to the present model?

If you want a business to survive without the need to expand, then the manager
has to choose not to uppen his salary more than for the things he actually needs.
But since it seems to be the essence of Man, to relief ones own existential fears
through collecting excess stock of things needed for survival, and since it is the
necessity for scientific progress to have spare time, and hence a society with
spare energy, or analogous, money, it is inevitable to acknowledge the need for a
sensible way to redistribute excess stock of (in this case) money for its currency
not to lose value, and for the economy to remain stable. But still, thanks to the
ideal and the effort for having free competition (which in essence means that
everything is allowed), another company doing the same thing as your business
does, would reinvest all its money in itself, grow faster and bigger then you and
soon buy bigger quantas of things, sell them cheaper and eliminate you from
the marked. So the world-government, mainly through the WTO (World Trade
Organization) makes sure nobody will be able to do business in a harmonic way,
but sets the scene for the biggest companies to become bigger, and the smaller
to go bankrupt.
My idea is to create a formula based on BNP, growth in BNP and the
potential (or the limits for) a country to spend its own wealth. By making this
you can create a border, (a line in the graph) where, as long as things happen
under this ratio of growth/value, there will be no problem. But every nation
should be obliged, i.e. by UN, to spend every amount created over that limit on
some international project, like bridges, the building of ISS, space exploration,
projects for helping other lands to get out of poverty, and so on. Thereby
there would be possible to create a constructive way of spending money that
theoretically doesn’t do anything else then decreasing the value of its currency,
and thus keeping economy stable. I think a lot about space exploration in
this, because the problem is that in the end, if every country has a stable
economy, and war is absent (although a defence will be present), the same
problem will occur again in time, since our model of growth is exponentially (a
certain percantage pr. year - this is NOT a straight line, but an exponetial graph
which soon will demand an infinite increase in production to match inflation,
which, through the past 1500 years have been the single reason for the biggest
empires to fall). There has to be a vent to let out the pressure, but still, people
have to have value for their money. Through projects in space people can get
to own things, and expand their businesses into space and space exploration -
to infinity. There will be no limit (the theoretical limit is the amount of energy
that is possible to extract from earth. Free energy from vacuum brings up some
interesting results rearding that). Thereby one can have growth without having
to lead destructive wars to release the economic pressure inside the system that
creates the money.
These are the first outlines for the idea of a formula that can predict when
a country will end up in the situation where war is a necessity for it to exist,

3
and hence a possibility to avoid it.
The most troubling result of this equation is that the only superpower in the
world right now has an economic model which cannot afford not to be at war...

Peace is not an option