October 2011 - P2P-Foundation - lists.ourproject.org

Robert Steele: #OWS Non-Violence versus Violence
by Michel Bauwens 16 Oct '11

16 Oct '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robert Steele <robert.david.steele.vivas(a)gmail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 11:33 PM Subject: For Broad Distribution if you please: Robert Steele: #OWS Non-Violence versus Violence To: Robert.David.Steele.Vivas(a)gmail.com Robert Steele: #OWS Non-Violence versus Violence<http://www.phibetaiota.net/2011/10/robert-steele-ows-non-violence-versus-vi…> -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] money as debt p. 2
by Michel Bauwens 16 Oct '11

16 Oct '11

This is a difficult debate for me Tadit, as I have never truly studied MMT, and what kind of money is best. I'd like to posit some general principles as to what a commons/p2p friendly policy would be ... - first of all, I think monetary freedom is important, which for me means that next to sovereign money that is governed by the collective, and we need at least a national and global level, we also must accept community-driven 'socially sovereign' money ... so repression of successful local money by the state is not acceptable - money should be a commons, I'm not sure exactly what that means, but it should not be subjected to speculation, and is a public utility that should be protected from private misuse ...; how exactly can we make money into a commons, that is an important question for me, in which I would like to be educated ; instinctevely I'm against the private for-profit creation of money as it is currently practiced - third, money has a design, and that design should be a design that does not permit excessive accumulation, nor require infinite growth before encountering MMT, the people I listened to were: * Bernard Lietaer, because of his recognition of all the levels, and his effort to have an answer for each level * Thomas Greco, and his idea for local credit commons, based on the real interactions of local players; weakness here is that it can't be applied rapidly enough in national crisis situations and this is why I liked the approach of Ellen Brown, because of her insistence, with many documented examples of the past, that people-friendly governments can issue money as a productive investment, and that it is not inflationary in such circumstances to summarize: - a pluralist money system that can operate on local, regional, national, and global levels, issued by either sovereign states or local or affinity communities - conceived as a commons / public utility that cannot be manipulated by private interests - designed in such a way that it does not create negative social and natural externalities (counter-example: bitcoin is socially sovereign but has the wrong design) Perhaps if you have time one day, you could write about how you see money as a commons, and how MMT stacks up against these contemporary 'p2p' driven demands One question for MMT, what kind of government would want to implement this? Michel On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 7:41 PM, <ideasinc(a)ee.net> wrote: > > > ------- Forwarded message ------- > From: ideasinc(a)ee.net > To: p2p-foundation <p2p-foundation(a)lists.**ourproject.org<p2p-foundation(a)lists.ourproject.org>>, > "Michel Bauwens" <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> > Cc: chris(a)cataspanglish.com > Subject: Re: [P2P-F] money as debt p. 2 > Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 08:20:51 -0400 > > Thank you, -Michel > > I watched the entire video, and have seen Money as Debt One several > times. First, the sophistication of Grignon understanding of economics has > greatly expanded. There are a few quibbles in details and the development > and identification. He is advocating for a version of MMT/FF. He never > actually addresses the state origin of money per se, and it is a major > objective. He never explicitly defines money as a COMMONS, and it is > central to his narrative. > > You will have to excuse me on two points of irony. Grignon mentions both > the Money Masters crew and the American Monetary institute, and he never > mentions MMT/FF or any of the participants in that discourse. It is a bit > like rolling out a plan and then not giving credit to the community which > has co-developed that bundle of ideas and principles. Not posing the > MMT/FF position as a legitimate participant in this immediate discussion > becomes a significant problem for me. The MMT/FF position on monetary > reform is actually the discovery that the bus named "Our Economy" actually > has a steering wheel and other control features. The advocacy of monetary > reform ends up being a bit pointless unless there is a substantial body of > practice that can propose new policies and move toward new fiscal > objectives. > > To a large degree, MMT/FF is what we can do with monetary reform that > reoccupies the currency commons being held as a privately held franchise. > The MMT/FF people are also of the opinion that new major legislation is > not necessary, the reforms that are needed could be done as easily as US > Pres. Nixon closing the Gold window in 1971 by executive order. Most of > the banking process that would be necessary to support the MMT/FF > instrumental process as already established though currently under private > franchise. > > The MMT/FF people seem to feel that the move for legislation, is more of > an educational and political strategy toward a public discourse, not > necessarily having a value in the literal reform agenda. In his roll out > of "alternatives" he mentions LETS (1.0) and Timebanks, which are > specifically debt based exchange models. They are credit union based, in a > sense, currencies that operate under banking laws and conventions. In that > there is a strong similarity between credit unions/thifts and debt based > "alternatives," it would likely be that there could be a legal point here > that debt based "alternatives" should be placed under the same banking > legislation and regulations. Operating across national boundaries would > seem to attract the same sort of scrutiny as is being given the hawala > networks. > > The second irony here for me is that although Grignon seems to advocate > for MMT/FF practices and principles, that energy is primarily directed > toward debt based alternatives. The CRX becomes a sort of missing link in > the process and in the discourse of what alternatives are possible. To > rely so much upon the MMT/FF discourse only tacitly acknowledged, and then > channeling reform energies into the centralization of electoral politics > and toward debt based semi-alternatives does not seem particularly > progressive in detail. There are nuances of the word "Open" that seem to > be absent in the named cast of participants. Perhaps there will be a > "Money As Debt III: Money as Asset/Sustainable Economics". > > as we go, Tadit > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 03:43:07 -0400, Michel Bauwens > <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=lsmbWBpnCNk<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsmbWBpnCNk> >> >> hi chris, could you embed this with the youtube abstact, post-date oct 25 >> or >> after, >> >> perhaps Tadit could offer an extra comment to add to it, >> >> Michel >> > -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

3 2

Huffington Post Article.
by robert searle 16 Oct '11

16 Oct '11

I have been putting up some notices on TFE on Occupy the Wall Street Facebook sites. I doubt whether the link will be read properly, or fully understood but I hope it might provide some food for thought. Also, in my notices on TFE I made the point that it can either work for, or against the rich. However, the emphasis has been with the latter so far. I have not seen any kind of credible opposition. Perhaps Occupy (and its other "branches) is at long last the "credible opposition" against the banking sector...or alternatively, it could ofcourse be just a flash in the pan. http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&cp=20&gs_id=2f&xhr=t&q=occupy+wall+street+fa… Also, the Huffington Post article might be of value.... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-harrington/occupy-wall-street-demands_b… RS.

2 1

cook mmt update
by Michel Bauwens 16 Oct '11

16 Oct '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Chris Cook <cjenscook(a)googlemail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 4:03 PM Subject: Re: [gang8] Re: Pushing on a piece of string To: Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> It's common source, Michel :-) Of course the two ae complementary since MMT deals - as the name suggests - with monetary matters, and if Georgism is anything, it's a fiscal approach. I think Georgism is misconceived by the way, in proposing that land value tax should be the 'single' tax, and no other tax is necessary. The principle of Georgism is that it is a tax on privileged property rights, and there are other privileges to tax as well. eg limited liability, where a tax on gross corporate revenues - starting with banks - is IMHO a much more workable approach than the Tobin tax on poorly defined 'speculation'. Best Regards Chris On 16 October 2011 05:41, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: > thanks Chris, is this shareable? > > in fact I think that mmt is fairl close to mmt ... for example, Michael > Hudson adheres to mmt tenets and is called a georgist economists ... > > > On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 4:10 AM, Chris Cook <cjenscook(a)googlemail.com>wrote: > >> Hi Michel >> >> I have followed it with great interest and am a member of a couple of >> relevant facebook groups etc etc. >> >> In my view they get one big point right. They correctly see the fiat money >> we currently use as a credit instrument (essentially an ownership claim) >> rather than a debt instrument (a counterparty claim). >> >> They also correctly identify that in the existing system it is the >> capacity of a government to tax which is the basis of the public credit they >> advocate. >> >> But what they do not do is address the key point that the government is >> itself an intermediary, and then examine critically the *basis *of >> taxation - and hence the basis of public credit - by addressing issues >> relating to privileged property rights and Capital. >> >> ie they get good marks for Monetary issues and poor marks for Fiscal >> issues. >> >> If, as MMT'ers suggest, you sweep away *private* bank credit >> intermediation/creation of credit, and replace it with* public* bank (or >> Treasury - cf social credit) intermediation you have a big, big problem. >> >> And this is that maybe two thirds of money in creation came about as >> mortgage loans. So while it is people-*based* credit backed by the use >> value of Labour (because the loan is to individuals) it is in fact *backed >> *by the use value of land. >> >> If you then move to a tax-based system of credit which is based almost >> entirely upon direct or indirect taxation of earned income (aka labour) with >> less than 10% (often a lot less - Ireland had zero property taxes) of >> national income from land, then you are going to get a serious imbalance in >> flows of wealth. >> >> So I guess what I am saying is that if MMT'ers got into bed with Georgists >> the outcome may be better than if they were able to implement their current >> policies. >> >> My approach, as you know, is to monetise (Peer to Peer) relationships >> between productive people, and Peer to Asset relationships between >> productive people and productive assets, through the use of associative >> framework agreements, and simple Unit instruments of undated credits. >> >> I see three key types of Unit each based upon a fundamental source of >> value (factor of production) >> >> (a) Unit redeemable in payment for land use value over time (rentals); >> >> (b) Unit redeemable in payment for energy use value over time (eg Kilo >> Watt Hours) and >> >> (c) Unit redeemable in payment for the use value of Intellect over time >> (which is, in an objective form, Intellectual Property, and in a subjective >> form is the key component of Labour, and the element which makes my raw >> manpower valuable). >> >> The equitable allocation and sharing of the flows of these forms of value >> is what the associative agreements - the legal XML - I advocate are all >> about. These consensual agreements will evolve to make redundant existing >> constitutions; laws; contracts; and conventions. >> >> Best Regards >> >> Chris >> >> PS I think you'll have seen my 'reality-based' or common-sense approach to >> economics.... >> >> >> http://nordicenterprisetrust.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/towards-an-economics-… >> >> >> >> On 13 October 2011 12:37, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net>wrote: >> >>> Hi Chris, >>> >>> I wonder if you ever engaged with Modern Monetary Theory? >>> >>> Michel >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Chris <cojock(a)hotmail.com> >>> Date: Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 5:19 PM >>> Subject: [gang8] Re: Pushing on a piece of string >>> To: gang8(a)yahoogroups.com >>> >>> >>> ** >>> >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> Perceptive and well argued as ever, but in our current system it is >>> impossible to address a solvency problem with monetary measures. >>> >>> The reality is that 90% of the population are insolvent; illiquid or >>> both, and there is a systemic shortage of purchasing power in the economy. >>> >>> That in turn is because for the last 30 years the rewards from >>> productivity increases went principally to capital rather than labour. This >>> long hidden recession was hidden by borrowing against inflated property >>> prices, and the result is - as Michael Hudson eloquently points out - that >>> 90% of people are in debt to the other 10%. >>> >>> Evidence of this transfer of wealth has been the secular decline in the >>> retail deposits of the many and the growth of the wholesale deposits of the >>> few: this decline gave us the Northern Rock business model; shadow banking >>> and much else. >>> >>> All that raising interest rates will achieve is a further transfer of >>> wealth - and purchasing power - from the productive 90% to the largely >>> unproductive 10%. >>> >>> In my view the answer lies in the re-basing of credit directly upon the >>> use value of productive assets ie direct 'Peer to Asset investment, and the >>> implementation of 'Peer to Peer' credit clearing mechanisms between >>> businesses and individuals subject to a mutual guarantee. Both mechanisms >>> could be managed by service-providers-formerly-known-as-banks. >>> >>> For those with eyes to see, this trend to dis-intermediation is already >>> well under way, as banks have been queuing up to originate and sell >>> quasi-equity products to investors such as Exchange Traded Funds; Index >>> Funds; Real Estate Investment trusts; Master Limited Partnerships and so on. >>> >>> The reason banks are doing this with such alacrity is that pretty much >>> the only capital they need as a service/liquidity provider is that necessary >>> to cover operating costs, and they can make money in all sorts of >>> interesting ways via their 'Delta One' desks (cf the UBS disaster). >>> >>> There are two massive problems in this financial market Next Big Thing. >>> >>> Firstly, the inflow of risk averse (NOT speculative investment intent on >>> transaction profit) money into commodity ETFs has financially inflated >>> commodity prices in a correlated bubble. This has provided a windfall gain >>> to the producers who accommodated the investors by financial leasing (ie >>> sale and repurchase) of commodities to them via investment banks. >>> >>> So, generally via investment banks as intermediaries, funds lend dollars >>> to producers who lend commodities to the funds. >>> >>> The cosmic joke here is that the 'inflation hedging' investors attempting >>> to avoid loss are actually responsible for causing the very inflation they >>> aim to avoid. >>> >>> Secondly, these largely risk averse investors are exposing themselves to >>> a level of market risk which was never made clear to them other than deep in >>> the boiler-plate agreements. The regulators are well aware that ETFs are a >>> regulatory disaster zone about to trigger. >>> >>> I am essentially proposing - and prototyping - a new generation of such >>> funds with the added innovation that the Units will be redeemable in payment >>> for the underlying value. eg REIT units redeemable in payment for rentals, >>> or energy ETFs redeemable in payment for energy. >>> >>> I believe that the existing system is terminally broken, but that the >>> emergence of pervasive direct instantaneous connections is facilitating >>> simple but radical new solutions which will dis-intermediate both >>> governments and shareholders. >>> >>> Best Regards >>> >>> Chris Cook >>> >>> >>> --- In gang8(a)yahoogroups.com, Ercouncil@... wrote: >>> > >>> > . >>> > >>> > I'm not impressed by Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, >>> > declaring that the current financial crisis in Britain is the worst >>> since 1931 and >>> > probably worse than that. The Bank of England is the heart of the >>> British >>> > banking system. King is paid his generous salary to do something about >>> it, >>> > not just stand there wringing his hands, and talking the markets even >>> > further down every time he wrings them. He should be sacked forthwith. >>> > >>> > Thanks to events in mid-2007 and subseqnetly, thanks to the way >>> Lehman's >>> > was allowed just to go down the tubes, the banks have been spooked. So >>> they >>> > are now scared to lend because the perceived risk now outweighs the >>> reward. >>> > >>> > Mr King has two choices on how to deal with that. He can either raise >>> the >>> > reward, or reduce the risk. Three choices - he could try to do both at >>> the >>> > same time. >>> > >>> > And at the risk of repeating myself, the basic rate of interest is the >>> > basic, discount rate on irreducible business risk, particularly risk as >>> >>> > perceived by the banks. Interest is their reward for taking on that >>> risk; if >>> > the rewards for doing so are not currently high enough, then raise >>> interest >>> > rates. >>> > >>> > Banks are chronologically myopic, they cannot see the future. Even if >>> they >>> > accept intellectually that small businesses are the foundation of new >>> > employment and of future economic advance, they do not want to take the >>> risk of >>> > funding overdrafts for small businesses, unless of course the small >>> > business has asset backing. When it has such backing a bank can make >>> its customer >>> > carry the risk by putting a charge on those assets. >>> > >>> > We have been here before. Britain's Macmillan Committee in 1931 saw >>> most >>> > of this. One of the things it did was to set up the state-owned >>> Industrial >>> > and Commercial Finance Corporation, the ICFC. I worked for it as a >>> > consultant in the early 1970s. Nowadays it calls itself 3i and has been >>> put into the >>> > private sector, where it now seems to be as risk averse as everyone >>> else. >>> > >>> > I personally believe Britain's banks encourage the wrong mindset in >>> their >>> > staff. A good banker should always be looking for business risks, and >>> > calculating them, not running away from them. >>> > >>> > In part the modern mindset is not that of human beings at all, but of >>> the >>> > computer systems which the banks use to assess risk. I am rapidly >>> coming to >>> > the conclusion that a large part of our present problem is caused by >>> > excessive reliance on cloned computer programmes, in running banks, and >>> in >>> > taking trading decisions about investment management. >>> > >>> > The computer programmes which 'model' financial transactions were >>> clearly >>> > written by mindless optimists who believed they could write risk right >>> out >>> > of the equation. They cannot. Instead they have ushered into an era >>> when the >>> > computers themselves are the risk. They risk bringing the whole system >>> > down as they mindlessly search for a risk-free world, when the only >>> risk-free >>> > economic world is one that does nothing at all. >>> > >>> > A cleverer governor of the Bank of England would recognise this. The >>> > business community is a collective risk. Take a leaf out of Lloyds >>> insurance and >>> > realise that big numbers are the only safety net. If the banks are not >>> > prepared to do it that way then the central authorities once again need >>> to show >>> > them how. And if the Treasury or the Bank of England underwrites risk, >>> > then just like Lloyds, it deserves part of the reward. If that means >>> the >>> > interest income now need to be split two ways, that is all the more >>> reason for >>> > increasing interest rates. >>> > >>> > Chris M >>> > London >>> > >>> >>> __._,_.___ >>> Reply to sender<[email protected]?subject=Re%3A%20Pushing%20on%20a%20piece%20of%20string>| Reply >>> to group<[email protected]?subject=Re%3A%20Pushing%20on%20a%20piece%20of%20string>| Reply >>> via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxZGR1NXNxBF9TAzk3MzU5N…>| Start >>> a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlczliY2EyBF9TAzk3MzU5N…> >>> Messages in this topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8/message/16258;_ylc=X3oDMTM2M2k2MGYyBF9T…>( >>> 2) >>> Recent Activity: >>> >>> >>> Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcm5oMjZmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BG…> >>> The gang8 list is devoted to Creditary Economics. >>> To unsubscribe, email: gang8-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com >>> >>> MARKETPLACE >>> >>> Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - >>> Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.<http://global.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=15o24ahmp/M=493064.14543979.14562481.132984…> >>> [image: Yahoo! Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcjkxZWE2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyM…> >>> Switch to: Text-Only<[email protected]?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>, >>> Daily Digest<[email protected]?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>• >>> Unsubscribe <gang8-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> • Terms >>> of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> >>> . >>> >>> __,_._,___ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - >>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net >>> >>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: >>> http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation >>> >>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; >>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens >>> >>> >> > > > -- > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: > http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation > > Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; > http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Fwd: [gang8] Re: Pushing on a piece of string
by Michel Bauwens 16 Oct '11

16 Oct '11

cook on mmt: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Chris Cook <cjenscook(a)googlemail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 4:10 AM Subject: Re: [gang8] Re: Pushing on a piece of string To: Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> Hi Michel I have followed it with great interest and am a member of a couple of relevant facebook groups etc etc. In my view they get one big point right. They correctly see the fiat money we currently use as a credit instrument (essentially an ownership claim) rather than a debt instrument (a counterparty claim). They also correctly identify that in the existing system it is the capacity of a government to tax which is the basis of the public credit they advocate. But what they do not do is address the key point that the government is itself an intermediary, and then examine critically the *basis *of taxation - and hence the basis of public credit - by addressing issues relating to privileged property rights and Capital. ie they get good marks for Monetary issues and poor marks for Fiscal issues. If, as MMT'ers suggest, you sweep away *private* bank credit intermediation/creation of credit, and replace it with* public* bank (or Treasury - cf social credit) intermediation you have a big, big problem. And this is that maybe two thirds of money in creation came about as mortgage loans. So while it is people-*based* credit backed by the use value of Labour (because the loan is to individuals) it is in fact *backed *by the use value of land. If you then move to a tax-based system of credit which is based almost entirely upon direct or indirect taxation of earned income (aka labour) with less than 10% (often a lot less - Ireland had zero property taxes) of national income from land, then you are going to get a serious imbalance in flows of wealth. So I guess what I am saying is that if MMT'ers got into bed with Georgists the outcome may be better than if they were able to implement their current policies. My approach, as you know, is to monetise (Peer to Peer) relationships between productive people, and Peer to Asset relationships between productive people and productive assets, through the use of associative framework agreements, and simple Unit instruments of undated credits. I see three key types of Unit each based upon a fundamental source of value (factor of production) (a) Unit redeemable in payment for land use value over time (rentals); (b) Unit redeemable in payment for energy use value over time (eg Kilo Watt Hours) and (c) Unit redeemable in payment for the use value of Intellect over time (which is, in an objective form, Intellectual Property, and in a subjective form is the key component of Labour, and the element which makes my raw manpower valuable). The equitable allocation and sharing of the flows of these forms of value is what the associative agreements - the legal XML - I advocate are all about. These consensual agreements will evolve to make redundant existing constitutions; laws; contracts; and conventions. Best Regards Chris PS I think you'll have seen my 'reality-based' or common-sense approach to economics.... http://nordicenterprisetrust.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/towards-an-economics-… On 13 October 2011 12:37, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > I wonder if you ever engaged with Modern Monetary Theory? > > Michel > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Chris <cojock(a)hotmail.com> > Date: Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 5:19 PM > Subject: [gang8] Re: Pushing on a piece of string > To: gang8(a)yahoogroups.com > > > ** > > > Chris > > Perceptive and well argued as ever, but in our current system it is > impossible to address a solvency problem with monetary measures. > > The reality is that 90% of the population are insolvent; illiquid or both, > and there is a systemic shortage of purchasing power in the economy. > > That in turn is because for the last 30 years the rewards from productivity > increases went principally to capital rather than labour. This long hidden > recession was hidden by borrowing against inflated property prices, and the > result is - as Michael Hudson eloquently points out - that 90% of people are > in debt to the other 10%. > > Evidence of this transfer of wealth has been the secular decline in the > retail deposits of the many and the growth of the wholesale deposits of the > few: this decline gave us the Northern Rock business model; shadow banking > and much else. > > All that raising interest rates will achieve is a further transfer of > wealth - and purchasing power - from the productive 90% to the largely > unproductive 10%. > > In my view the answer lies in the re-basing of credit directly upon the use > value of productive assets ie direct 'Peer to Asset investment, and the > implementation of 'Peer to Peer' credit clearing mechanisms between > businesses and individuals subject to a mutual guarantee. Both mechanisms > could be managed by service-providers-formerly-known-as-banks. > > For those with eyes to see, this trend to dis-intermediation is already > well under way, as banks have been queuing up to originate and sell > quasi-equity products to investors such as Exchange Traded Funds; Index > Funds; Real Estate Investment trusts; Master Limited Partnerships and so on. > > The reason banks are doing this with such alacrity is that pretty much the > only capital they need as a service/liquidity provider is that necessary to > cover operating costs, and they can make money in all sorts of interesting > ways via their 'Delta One' desks (cf the UBS disaster). > > There are two massive problems in this financial market Next Big Thing. > > Firstly, the inflow of risk averse (NOT speculative investment intent on > transaction profit) money into commodity ETFs has financially inflated > commodity prices in a correlated bubble. This has provided a windfall gain > to the producers who accommodated the investors by financial leasing (ie > sale and repurchase) of commodities to them via investment banks. > > So, generally via investment banks as intermediaries, funds lend dollars to > producers who lend commodities to the funds. > > The cosmic joke here is that the 'inflation hedging' investors attempting > to avoid loss are actually responsible for causing the very inflation they > aim to avoid. > > Secondly, these largely risk averse investors are exposing themselves to a > level of market risk which was never made clear to them other than deep in > the boiler-plate agreements. The regulators are well aware that ETFs are a > regulatory disaster zone about to trigger. > > I am essentially proposing - and prototyping - a new generation of such > funds with the added innovation that the Units will be redeemable in payment > for the underlying value. eg REIT units redeemable in payment for rentals, > or energy ETFs redeemable in payment for energy. > > I believe that the existing system is terminally broken, but that the > emergence of pervasive direct instantaneous connections is facilitating > simple but radical new solutions which will dis-intermediate both > governments and shareholders. > > Best Regards > > Chris Cook > > > --- In gang8(a)yahoogroups.com, Ercouncil@... wrote: > > > > . > > > > I'm not impressed by Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, > > declaring that the current financial crisis in Britain is the worst since > 1931 and > > probably worse than that. The Bank of England is the heart of the British > > > banking system. King is paid his generous salary to do something about > it, > > not just stand there wringing his hands, and talking the markets even > > further down every time he wrings them. He should be sacked forthwith. > > > > Thanks to events in mid-2007 and subseqnetly, thanks to the way Lehman's > > was allowed just to go down the tubes, the banks have been spooked. So > they > > are now scared to lend because the perceived risk now outweighs the > reward. > > > > Mr King has two choices on how to deal with that. He can either raise the > > > reward, or reduce the risk. Three choices - he could try to do both at > the > > same time. > > > > And at the risk of repeating myself, the basic rate of interest is the > > basic, discount rate on irreducible business risk, particularly risk as > > perceived by the banks. Interest is their reward for taking on that risk; > if > > the rewards for doing so are not currently high enough, then raise > interest > > rates. > > > > Banks are chronologically myopic, they cannot see the future. Even if > they > > accept intellectually that small businesses are the foundation of new > > employment and of future economic advance, they do not want to take the > risk of > > funding overdrafts for small businesses, unless of course the small > > business has asset backing. When it has such backing a bank can make its > customer > > carry the risk by putting a charge on those assets. > > > > We have been here before. Britain's Macmillan Committee in 1931 saw most > > of this. One of the things it did was to set up the state-owned > Industrial > > and Commercial Finance Corporation, the ICFC. I worked for it as a > > consultant in the early 1970s. Nowadays it calls itself 3i and has been > put into the > > private sector, where it now seems to be as risk averse as everyone else. > > > > I personally believe Britain's banks encourage the wrong mindset in their > > > staff. A good banker should always be looking for business risks, and > > calculating them, not running away from them. > > > > In part the modern mindset is not that of human beings at all, but of the > > > computer systems which the banks use to assess risk. I am rapidly coming > to > > the conclusion that a large part of our present problem is caused by > > excessive reliance on cloned computer programmes, in running banks, and > in > > taking trading decisions about investment management. > > > > The computer programmes which 'model' financial transactions were clearly > > > written by mindless optimists who believed they could write risk right > out > > of the equation. They cannot. Instead they have ushered into an era when > the > > computers themselves are the risk. They risk bringing the whole system > > down as they mindlessly search for a risk-free world, when the only > risk-free > > economic world is one that does nothing at all. > > > > A cleverer governor of the Bank of England would recognise this. The > > business community is a collective risk. Take a leaf out of Lloyds > insurance and > > realise that big numbers are the only safety net. If the banks are not > > prepared to do it that way then the central authorities once again need > to show > > them how. And if the Treasury or the Bank of England underwrites risk, > > then just like Lloyds, it deserves part of the reward. If that means the > > interest income now need to be split two ways, that is all the more > reason for > > increasing interest rates. > > > > Chris M > > London > > > > __._,_.___ > Reply to sender<[email protected]?subject=Re%3A%20Pushing%20on%20a%20piece%20of%20string>| Reply > to group<[email protected]?subject=Re%3A%20Pushing%20on%20a%20piece%20of%20string>| Reply > via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxZGR1NXNxBF9TAzk3MzU5N…>| Start > a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlczliY2EyBF9TAzk3MzU5N…> > Messages in this topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8/message/16258;_ylc=X3oDMTM2M2k2MGYyBF9T…>( > 2) > Recent Activity: > > > Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcm5oMjZmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BG…> > The gang8 list is devoted to Creditary Economics. > To unsubscribe, email: gang8-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com > > MARKETPLACE > > Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get > the Yahoo! Toolbar now.<http://global.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=15o24ahmp/M=493064.14543979.14562481.132984…> > [image: Yahoo! Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcjkxZWE2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyM…> > Switch to: Text-Only<[email protected]?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>, > Daily Digest <[email protected]?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>• > Unsubscribe <gang8-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> • Terms > of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> > . > > __,_._,___ > > > > > -- > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: > http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation > > Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; > http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Fwd: THE STRUGGLE FOR THE COMMONS
by Michel Bauwens 16 Oct '11

16 Oct '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Bollier <david(a)bollier.org> Date: Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 3:55 AM Subject: Fwd: THE STRUGGLE FOR THE COMMONS To: Silke Helfrich <Silke.Helfrich(a)gmx.de>, Michel Bauwens < michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> ** ** ** ** ** ** ************ ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** *THE STRUGGLE FOR THE COMMONS* ** ** *by Jay Walljasper, The Nation, 29 September 2011.* ** ** *Jay Walljasper, a senior fellow at On the Commons and editor of OnTheCommons.org, is the author, most recently, of *All That We Share: A Field Guide to the Commons* (The New Press)*.**** ** ** The commons is an old value that’s resurfacing as a fresh approach to twenty-first-century crises such as escalating economic inequality, looming ecological disruption and worsening social alienation.**** ** ** In essence, the commons means everything that belongs to all of us, and the many ways we work together to use these assets to build a better society. This encompasses fresh air and clean water, public spaces and public services, the Internet and the airwaves, our legal system, scientific knowledge, biodiversity, language, artistic traditions, fashion styles, cuisines and much more. Taken together, it represents a vast inheritance bequeathed equally to every human -- and one that, if used wisely, will provide for future generations.**** ** ** Tragically, this wealth is being stolen in the name of economic efficiency and global competitiveness. As the disparity between the world’s richest individuals and everyone else grows, a massive takeover of the commons is occurring. Through privatization schemes, land grabs, excessive copyright and patenting claims, no-new-taxes policies, neocolonial globalization and the gutting of government services, we are losing what is rightfully ours. These radical policies inflict economic pain but also diminish the natural world, our sense of community and the ability to participate in decisions affecting our future.**** ** ** Of course, this is nothing new. It has been happening ever since feudal lords in **Europe** enclosed forests and grazing lands (the original meaning of the word “commons”), which helped set the stage for the brutality of the Industrial Revolution and colonial invasions. The assault on the commons has intensified over the past thirty years, however, because of the rise of market ideology as the overpowering force in international politics.**** ** ** But all is not lost. We still depend on and take advantage of the commons every minute of the day, from the tap water we use to brush our teeth in the morning to the fairy tales we tell our kids at bedtime. We have no choice but to redouble efforts to save the commons in its many forms, from essential public services in our communities to net neutrality to a spirit of cooperation in our everyday lives. As awareness of what belongs to all of us grows among progressives, the commons is gradually emerging as both a critique and a strategy to challenge the dominance of market-based values at every level of our society.**** ** ** * * ***** ** ** The work of the commons points us toward a brighter future where the out-of-control individualism of modern society is balanced with a new appreciation of what we can accomplish together -- a welcome shift from “me” to “we.” This can range from community gardens and budget-cut protests at the grassroots level to open-source initiatives in professional fields to economic justice and environmental campaigns in the political world. (Of course, most people doing commons work don’t call it that, and many may not be familiar with the term at all; for them it’s simply the “common good.”)** ** ** ** Although a new concept to us, the commons stands as a central organizing principle of indigenous societies, peasant communities and many advanced industrial nations. Social democracy, as practiced in **Europe** and other places, embodies a basic commons principle -- that no one should be denied basic needs like food, housing, healthcare, daycare, education, transportation, job training, paid vacation, a comfortable old age and a measure of dignity in their lives.**** ** ** Even American society has been grounded in the commons idea since the beginning. Nature’s gifts are “the common property of the human race,” declared Thomas Paine. *The Land Ordinance of 1785*, drafted by a committee of the Continental Congress that included Thomas Jefferson, established a cooperative model for settlement of the West (and removal of Indian nations) by setting aside one square-mile section of every township as common property to be used to support a public school.**** ** ** New Deal legislation, crowned by the Social Security Act and the GI Bill, drew upon a sense of the commons -- the belief that we’re all in this together -- to elevate millions of families into the middle class. In many cases, however, these benefits were denied to African-Americans, Latinos and American Indians, a situation Ira Katznelson chronicles in his book *When Affirmative Action Was White*. Repairing longstanding racial and economic injustice remains one of the central themes of commons activism today.**** ** ** Although rarely articulated as a distinct philosophy, the ideals of the commons provided inspiration for key advancements throughout our history -- ranging from public health improvements and civic reforms of the Progressive era to the gains made for working families by labor unions to the accomplishments of social movements since the 1960s. All these success stories refute frequent claims that individualism alone accounts for **** America****’s progress.**** ** ** For progressives today, a new focus on all that we share will provide a boost in forging strategies and policies that win the hearts of Americans. Until the Great Recession hit in 2008, increasing numbers bought into the market mantra that you cannot depend on anything you don’t own. Although this made little sense to the majority of Americans left behind by the economy, especially those who never shared in the prosperity, many middle-class people came to accept that logic. Who cares that the recreation center at the park is padlocked, when you can buy into a private health club?**** ** ** Then, suddenly, all that we share -- parks, libraries, transit, public schools, a social safety net, a sense of community cooperation -- has become increasingly important. Yet, ironically, at a time when demand for public and civic services is rising, sharp reductions in tax revenues and charitable giving (along with politicians’ refusal to raise taxes) mean that these services are being cut back or eliminated.**** ** ** More Americans understand it’s crazy that library hours are being slashed when increasing numbers of people can’t afford Internet service, magazine subscriptions or new books. It’s ridiculous that transit fares are rising and routes are being cut when it’s harder than ever for some people to afford cars or gas, and when it’s clear that auto emissions are affecting the world’s climate. It’s criminal that programs helping the poor, both in government and in civil society, are struggling to find money when so many more people now depend on them.**** ** ** In my new book, *All That We Share: A Field Guide to the Commons*, I call this situation “a tragedy of the commons.” In fact, that’s the opposite of how this phrase is generally understood -- that the commons itself is the tragedy, not its destruction. This negative view dates to 1968, when wildlife biologist Garrett Hardin published a hugely influential essay, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” in which he speculated that collective ownership of resources was a major factor in environmental destruction. Describing a hypothetical common pasture, he argued that because no one owns it outright, no one has an incentive to take care of it. This means that everyone will graze as many cattle as possible there until the land turns barren.**** ** ** Free-market advocates seized on Hardin’s parable as proof that any system other than rigid private property leads to ruin. It took decades of work by ****Indiana** **University**** political scientist Elinor Ostrom -- co-winner of the 2009 Nobel Prize for Economics, the first woman so honored -- to debunk the belief that the commons inevitably leads to tragedy. Ostrom’s fieldwork in **Kenya**, **Switzerland**, **Guatemala**, **Nepal**, **Turkey** and ****Los Angeles**** shows that people in real communities generally create rules and systems to protect the resources they share. These can be enforced by government regulation, local customs or other means. Other examples include the rules New England lobstermen developed through the years to prevent overfishing and the acequia irrigation systems in arid New Mexico, which have been successfully governed by community groups as long as four centuries.**** ** ** The tragedy of the commons, in Hardin’s sense of the phrase, does indeed exist, as seen in the collapse of global fish stocks and continuing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. But Ostrom’s research shows that the lack of commons management, not the commons itself, is to blame.*** * ** ** The recognition of Ostrom’s work, along with a culture of online sharing fostered by the Internet, is sparking the emergence of a new movement championing the commons -- as a precious inheritance we must save and as a way of looking at the world. It’s actually a movement of movements, as activists concerned about seemingly distinct issues as indigenous rights, fair access to the Internet, economic inequity, the environment or the growing lack of democratic participation realize what they have in common. There’s real potential for “more than the sum of the parts” results here. The surprising rise of Europe’s “pirate” parties (which recently won seats in ****Berlin****’s state legislature), sparked by opposition to restrictive copyrights and patent laws, points to the political possibilities of the commons.**** ** ** The number of people who identify as “commoners” is still small; yet the commons movement already has a global reach, with citizens from thirty-four nations attending the first International Conference on the Commons, in ** Berlin** last November, including a government minister and a former president of the national assembly from ****Ecuador****. The World Social Forum issued a call for “all citizens of the world to deepen the notion of the commons.” So far the ideals of the commons seem to appeal most to people in developing nations and social democracies, where individualism and the market mentality are not so ingrained as in the ****United States****.**** ** ** But the financial implosion of 2008 and its still-reverberating side effects could be the catalyst for Americans to rethink some of our assumptions about what matters most in society. In the immediate aftermath of the crash, many sought comfort in the nostrums of the Tea Party. But as it becomes clear that high unemployment, economic uncertainty and escalating wealth disparities are here to stay under current policies, the values of the commons will resonate with more Americans. The emergence of this progressive worldview could help redefine the American Dream and our political priorities.**** ************ -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

chicago civic commons'
by Michel Bauwens 16 Oct '11

16 Oct '11

dear Michael, see http://onthecommons.org/none-dare-call-it-privatization I wonder if you'd have the time to write something about this trend for the p2p blog? a paragraph introducing it would be fine as well, Michel -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Contributing to p2p
by sindikat 15 Oct '11

15 Oct '11

Hi all! I'm a strong supporter of free software and p2p technologies, however not too good in technical aspect. I have around 200$ and want to buy a VPS to setup several things i always wanted, but before doing it i want your advice. First of all i want to setup my own IMAP/SMTP server to have all my mail in one place (mail from other addresses will be forwarded to it). Then maybe ownCloud to store and synchronize movable data. A jabber-server maybe, because many jabber servers unfortunately are not so reliable. And also something that will contribute to P2P movement. But what would you suggest? What software should i install and configure on my VPS? Is it possible to configure it as Tor node or other stuff like that? Maybe i shouldn't buy VPS but something else? Should i encrypt it? Of course if i had more money myself or would be confident about donations from others, i would setup something public like Diaspora pod or file-store or whatever. And of course ideal situation is something like buying plug computer with FreedomBox, but right now it is not really possible. Looking forward for your advice. sindikat

2 1

Fwd: Community Building - Scott Peck
by Michel Bauwens 15 Oct '11

15 Oct '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:54 PM Subject: Community Building - Scott Peck To: econowmix(a)googlegroups.com, hc_ecology(a)yahoogroups.com, sustainable_solidarity(a)yahoogroups.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck#Community_Building Community Building In his book *The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace[7]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck#cite_note-Drummult-6> *, Peck says that community <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community> has three essential ingredients: - Inclusivity<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusion_%28value_and_practice%29> - Commitment <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promise> - Consensus <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus> Based on his experience with community building workshops, Peck says that community building typically goes through four stages: - *Pseudocommunity*: This is a stage where the members pretend<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing> to have a *bonhomie* with one another, and cover up their differences, by acting as if the differences do not exist. Pseudocommunity can never directly lead to community, and it is the job of the person guiding the community building process to shorten this period as much as possible. - *Chaos <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disorder>*: When pseudocommunity fails to work, the members start falling upon each other, giving vent to their mutual disagreements and differences. This is a period of chaos. It is a time when the people in the community realize that differences cannot simply be ignored. Chaos looks counterproductive but it is the first genuine <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/genuine> step towards community building. - *Emptiness*: After chaos comes emptiness. At this stage, the people learn to empty themselves of those ego<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_%28spirituality%29> related factors that are preventing their entry into community. Emptiness is a tough step because it involves the death of a part of the individual<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual>. But, Scott Peck argues, this death paves the way for the birth of a new creature, the *Community*. - *True community<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck#The_meaning_of_true_community> *: Having worked through emptiness, the people in community are in complete empathy with one another. There is a great level of tacit understanding. People are able to relate to each other's feelings. Discussions, even when heated, never get sour, and motives are not questioned. The four stages of community formation are somewhat related to a model<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_%28abstract%29> in organization theory <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_theory> for the five stages that a team goes through during development. These five stages are: - *Forming* where the team members have some initial discomfort with each other but nothing comes out in the open. They are insecure<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_insecurity> about their role and position with respect to the team. This corresponds to the initial stage of pseudocommunity. - *Storming* where the team members start arguing heatedly and differences and insecurities come out in the open. This corresponds to the second stage given by Scott Peck, namely chaos. - *Norming* where the team members lay out rules and guidelines for interaction that help define the roles and responsibilities of each person. This corresponds to emptiness, where the community members think within and empty themselves of their obsessions to be able to accept and listen to others. - *Performing* where the team finally starts working as a cohesive whole, and effectively achieve the tasks set of themselves. In this stage individuals are aided by the group as a whole where necessary, in order to move further collectively than they could achieve as a group of separated individuals. - *Transforming* This corresponds to the stage of true community. This represents the stage of celebration, and when individuals leave, as they must, there is a genuine feeling of grief<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grief>, and a desire to meet again. Traditionally this stage was often called "Mourning". It is in this third stage that Peck's community-building methods differ in principle from team development. While teams in business organizations need to develop explicit rules, guidelines and protocols during the *norming* stage, the *emptiness' stage of community building is characterized, not by laying down the rules explicitly, but by shedding the resistance within the minds of the individuals.* Peck started the Foundation for Community Encouragement (FCE) to promote the formation of communities, which, he argues, are a first step towards uniting humanity and saving us from self destruction. The Blue Heron Farm [1] <http://www.bhfarm.org/history.htm> is an intentional community <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_community> in central North Carolina <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina> whose founders stated that they were inspired by Peck's writings on community, although Peck himself had no involvement with this project. [edit<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M._Scott_Peck&action=edit&section…> ]Characteristics of True Community Peck describes what he considers to be the most salient characteristics of a true community[7]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck#cite_note-Drummult-6> : - *Inclusivity, commitment and consensus*: Members accept and embrace each other, celebrating their individuality and transcending their differences. They commit themselves to the effort and the people involved. They make decisions and reconcile their differences through consensus. - *Realism*: Members bring together multiple perspectives to better understand the whole context of the situation. Decisions are more well-rounded and humble, rather than one-sided and arrogant. - *Contemplation*: Members examine themselves. They are individually and collectively self-aware of the world outside themselves, the world inside themselves, and the relationship between the two. - *A safe place*: Members allow others to share their vulnerability, heal themselves, and express who they truly are. - *A laboratory for personal disarmament*: Members experientially discover the rules for peacemaking and embrace its virtues. They feel and express compassion <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion> and respect for each other as fellow human beings. - *A group that can fight gracefully*: Members resolve conflicts with wisdom and grace. They listen and understand, respect each others' gifts, accept each others' limitations, celebrate their differences, bind each others’ wounds, and commit to a struggle together rather than against each other. - *A group of all leaders*: Members harness the “flow of leadership” to make decisions and set a course of action. It is the spirit of community itself that leads and not any single individual. - *A spirit*: The true spirit of community is the spirit of peace<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace>, love, wisdom <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom> and power. Members may view the source of this spirit as an outgrowth of the collective self or as the manifestation of a Higher Will. -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

The Charter of the Forest
by ideasinc＠ee.net 15 Oct '11

15 Oct '11

this article would seem to be a basic piece relative to providing a historical context for the the principle of the commons first paragraph: The charter was designed to complement Magna Carta, which had been signed in 1215 by Henry’s predecessor and father, King John, in which he promised his subjects that England would be governed, and his barons dealt with, according to the customs of feudal law. Almost immediately, Magna Carta was nullified by Pope Innocent III, who agreed with John that the agreement had been extorted by force. The barons rebelled (see Barons’ War), and in October 1216 John died and was succeeded by his nine-year-old son, Henry. A council of barons loyal to John, and led by William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke, was created to rule on Henry’s behalf. To end the rebellion, it decided to reissue Magna Carta. This document had never satisfactorily dealt with the issue of forest law, which was a cause of widespread resentment. http://www.economics.arawakcity.org/node/78

2 1