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

non-petro agri
by Michel Bauwens 21 Apr '11

21 Apr '11

see organic design and 2 documentaries mentioned here http://nice-world.org/ Nicholas, I was wondering if you could present this project on our blog? 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

Fwd: [P2P-URBANISM WA] Re: WECREATE: 1st Neurochemically Primed Innovation Space NYC
by Michael Mehaffy 20 Apr '11

20 Apr '11

Hello Araceli, Thanks again for the contact, and the response. I would say also that I at least (and I won't presume to speak for anyone else) am not at all interested in any ideological position of correctness, or design theology. But among my colleagues and others today, I see three general positions in this area. So I'd like to state those clearly so we can each understand "where we are coming from" as they say. One position is that of those folks who are in fact *ex cathedra* about various theories and doctrines. A lot of my fellow architects in the past have been of that ilk, as well as other designers. They have their "schtick," their story, and they are sticking to it... A second position is what a number of natural scientists have called "critical realism," the notion that we have working propositions about how the world works, and some are in fact more correct than others -- or, more precisely, they add important contributions to a more accurate (meaning more reliably useful) understanding. Newtonian physics is no so much wrong, as an incomplete model, a partial version of reality, which is supplemented very usefully with relativity and quantum physics. (Very usefully in the sense that we now have electronics and nuclear medicine and a host of other things - and some complications too, of course.) A third position is what I might define as "poststructuralist epistemology" - that is, we must avoid any hint of foundationalism, and embrace a Kantian kind of relativism of knowledge, understandign it as a culturally constructed narrative outside of any separate notion (or even hyposthesis) of "meaning." As Derrida said, "there is nothing outside the text." In this view, Newtonian physics is a mere paradigm, to be replaced with another paradigm -- not more or less right, because there is no external frame of reference to judge that, but simply a successional construction of the culture. The trouble with this view, to put it simply, is that therefore I quite literally don't know what they mean! They themselves have, in their own explicit epistemology, taken away any possibility of a sharable meaning, apart from my construction, your construction, his or her construction. If we happen to decide to share our meanings, great -- a kind of Desiderata philosophy, "if we find each other, it's beautiful." Otherwise, full-on epistemological relativism is the rule of the day. (And as we see with the extreme post-Kuhnnian view of science, it even affects ontology too.) Functionally, this is a big problem. It's in fact a colossally conservative position, a laissez-faire position. (As Habermas famously made clear to Derrida and others, much to their annoyance - because the fashionable self-identification is anything but. But as Habermas argued, logic is still logic...) The reason this matters so much, and why I mention it early in this discussion, is that it is a colossally powerful idea today in the design world, and the world of the arts in general. It is not taken seriously by most scientists, for reasons I suggest above, but architects, literary people, etc. - bring it on. Why? It's an enticing solution to the vexing failures of a more linear, modernist regime that has clearly failed. It offers a kind of "artistic blank check" to do whatever. It offers loopholes one can drive a truck through -- "let us have diversity" (which I am all for, but this is not the same thing as relativism); "let us be open-minded;" "let us earnestly take on all manner of serious problems, like climate change, and make narratives about them, artistic nods to them - a kind of magical thinking - but at the end of the day, let us assure that these small experiments all add up to nothing of any real consequence! If I were paranoid, and thought various special interests were capable of engineering such a philosophy to keep these people docile and ineffective - perhaps even pliant tools, allowing them to go on making lots of money depleting the commons and its natural capital - "let them have their absurd, self-eviscerating ideas" - well, they could hardly do better! (p.s. I copy some material from Rem Koolhaas below, who I think expresses this perspective very well indeed, together with its results -- abotu which he wrings his hands with the best of them. As does Peter Eisenman, and others... But woe is us, nothing is to be done... so let's just have a rollicking good time!) So I go into such discussions always wary of this problem, because it is so dominant in the design world today. And this is why I think the P2P Foundation is so exciting - it suggests that we CAN build something more effective, more resilient, just as collective intelligence has functioned in the past so effectively. (Science itself is one important for of such a collective intelligence...) By the way, I would agree with your Einstein quote that imagination is more important than knowledge, when it comes to the cutting edge of science -- and of understanding reality. But not imagination set* loose* from hard-won knowledge! We have been down that failed Utopian road too many times before... Cheers, m >From Koolhaas, "Whatever happened to urbanism?" http://www.princeclausfund.nl/urbanheroes/abert/texto4.htm Modernism's alchemistic promise – to transform quantity into quality through abstraction and repetition – has been a failure, a hoax: magic that didn't work. Its ideas, aesthetics, strategies are finished. Together, all attempts to make a new beginning have only discredited the idea of a new beginning. A collective shame in the wake of this fiasco has left a massive crater in our understanding of modernity and modernization.... Since it is out of control, the urban is about to become a major vector of the imagination. Redefined, urbanism will not only, or mostly, be a profession, but a way of thinking, an ideology: to accept what exists. We were making sand castles. Now we swim in the sea that swept them away... The seeming failure of the urban offers an exceptional opportunity, a pretext for Nietzschean frivolity. We have to imagine 1,001 other concepts of city; we have to take insane risks; we have to dare to be utterly uncritical; we have to swallow deeply and bestow forgiveness left and right. The certainty of failure has to be our laughing gas/oxygen; modernization our most potent drug. Since we are not responsible, we have to become irresponsible. In a landscape of increasing expediency and impermanence, urbanism no longer is or has to be the most solemn of our decisions; urbanism can lighten up, become a *Gay Science *– Lite Urbanism. Woo-hoo - Par-tee! (Mehaffy editorial comment!) >From Koolhaas, interview in Architecture Week http://www.architectureweek.com/2007/0801/design_1-2.html The work we do is no longer mutually reinforcing, but I would say that any accumulation is counterproductive, to the point that each new addition reduces the sum's value. In addition, we of course work enthusiastically for clients we readily describe as tyrants and occupiers. So there are many problems, first of all our work, which is not able to find its way out of this recurring dilemma, then there are the many reasons to question our sincerity and motives... It is not always clear whether we are using our position to engage in an intellectual discourse or an incredible ego free-for-all... (MM) Well, I give him high marks for honesty! On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Araceli Camargo <thecubelondon(a)gmail.com>wrote: > Hi All, > > Thanks for getting the conversation started. I am currently writing our use > of neurochemicals and space, which I will send out the list. Our perspective > is that the more we use the knowledge available on brain to enhance > potential and be more purposeful the better. > > The brain is not a linear and the study is even less so. Like any tool, > when we first learn to use it, we feel in uncomfortable, however as time > progresses we create finesse and innovation- this is what we are striving > for. > > In the meantime attached is our program, which is a showcase of our 'brain > technology' and philosophy. If any of you are interested in seeing this in > context I would welcome you to come to the launch. > > We also welcome contradiction as we are not interested in being > 'right'...we see ourselves as explorers and being proved wrong is healthy as > that means we are on our way to learning something new. > > Thanks in advance for the interest and discussion, > > Araceli > Founder > www.wecreatenyc.com > www.thecubelondon.com > > > > On 20 April 2011 18:16, Michael Mehaffy <michael.mehaffy(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> I for one welcome the interest, and personally I do not find the proposal >> "scary" -- but I do have a concern that it may reflect a fairly linear, >> "mechanical" approach to technology. That's not to single out this >> proposal, as such linear approaches are still common in the design world >> today, and I think we still have many hard questions to ask -- so I welcome >> such a critical exploration. What I would say in initial response is that >> I think we are really learning from biological sciences that there is a much >> more "joined up" approach to achieving resilience than we have yet >> considered, and than we are likely to find with narrow mechanical >> "wheel-reinventing" approaches. (I cannot judge this proposals specifically, >> except to say it seems to have some of those traits.) I think that is always >> the danger with explorations of topics such as neuroscience, which can >> otherwise be incredibly beneficial. There is the tool, and then there is >> always the question of how we use it! >> >> Best, m >> >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Thanks Araceli, >>> >>> I'm sharing this with our list, though I can imagine some people may find >>> this 'scary' ? >>> >>> I'm curious as to potential reactions, >>> >>> Michel >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Araceli Camargo < >>> thecubelondon(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi Michel, >>>> >>>> We read about your peer to peer foundation and think that our work might >>>> be of interest to you, please see our press release below and attached our >>>> launch program. >>>> >>>> We would love to see you at the launch on the 4th of May from 10-6pm. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Araceli >>>> >>>> *FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE* >>>> >>>> *WECREATE NYC: First Neurochemically-Primed, Innovation Space Opens in >>>> Manhattan* >>>> >>>> *New Workspace Uses Brain Technology to Build New Economy* >>>> >>>> *WECREATE NYC (wecreatenyc.com) *New York’s first >>>> neurochemically-primed, innovation workspace for entrepreneurs, small >>>> businesses and thinkers, launches on May 4th 2011 in Greenwich Village. >>>> From the American founders of London’s THECUBE, WECREATE NYC combines >>>> expertise in neurology and industrial engineering to bring *brain >>>> technology* to New York. >>>> >>>> Co-founder Daniel Gutierrez says “New York has the opportunity and the >>>> responsibility to create the model for a new economy, as the city attracts >>>> some of the brightest brains in the world. Our vision is to provide a space >>>> for this talent, which encourages innovation, industriousness and the >>>> sharing of ideas, to create solutions that effect change”. >>>> >>>> The idea behind WECREATE NYC, *brain technology* involves learning how >>>> to use the brain to its full potential. Araceli Camargo-Kilpatrick explains, >>>> “understanding how our brain forms ideas, solves problems, and innovates >>>> makes all the difference in having a successful business. The aim of >>>> WECREATE is to create an industry-diverse workspace for entrepreneurs >>>> interested in collaborating, serious about growing their business and >>>> testing their brain technology”. >>>> >>>> Not just another hot house for tech start-ups, WECREATE already has a >>>> community of psychologists, photographers, NGOs, economists and architects >>>> already involved in the innovation space. >>>> >>>> Araceli continues, “We will be providing members with a new type of >>>> business strategy which combines tools extrapolated from neurology and >>>> industrial engineering. We are also providing our members with a diverse >>>> community as research from leading Dr. Keith Sawyer indicates that diversity >>>> is key to innovation. WECREATE is here to help make enterprise accessible >>>> and viable to all who are thinking about starting their business”. >>>> >>>> This focus on brain technology also extends to the neurochemically >>>> primed design of the WECREATE space. How the light comes into the space, the >>>> colours in the space, the materials, and the layout are all for the purpose >>>> of creating the best environment for brains to innovate. >>>> >>>> WECREATE NYC aims to build on the success of THECUBE in London’s >>>> Shoreditch <http://www.thecubelondon.com/>, which was established in >>>> September 2009 and profitable in its first year. Collaboration between the >>>> two innovation spaces will be encouraged, applying brain technology to >>>> generate ideas on both sides of the Atlantic >>>> >>>> *NOTES TO EDITORS* >>>> >>>> *WECREATE – Launch* >>>> >>>> When: Press launch May 4, 2011 TIME<http://www.wecreatenyc.com/events/> >>>> >>>> Where: 58 East 11th Street 10003, 8th floor >>>> >>>> What: See website for the schedule www.wecreatenyc.com >>>> >>>> ** >>>> >>>> *About WECREATE NYC – New York* >>>> >>>> WECREATE NYC is a new innovation and collaborative workspace. Our >>>> objective is to create a vibrant space for entrepreneurs interested in >>>> collaborating with a diverse group of people, serious about growing their >>>> business, and wanting to push innovation boundaries. Our space will house >>>> people from diverse backgrounds and explore a wide range of knowledge >>>> neighborhoods to help instigate interesting collaborations. >>>> >>>> Ideas are the fuel of great businesses, without them we wouldn’t have >>>> anything. WECREATE will be a space that hosts and facilitates the sparks of >>>> strong ideas. >>>> >>>> The objective of innovation is to create a new economy, WECREATE will >>>> focus on getting entrepreneurs to generate sustainable businesses that will >>>> have longevity and feed the economy of the future.www.wecreatenyc.com >>>> >>>> The space is founded by Daniel C. Gutierrez and Araceli Camargo. >>>> >>>> *About THECUBE – London* >>>> >>>> THECUBE workspace opened in September 2009 in London’s Spitalfields. We >>>> were inspired by the collapse of Lehman Brothers to create a psychical >>>> space, that would nourish and house would-be-entrepreneurs, who are now >>>> creating sustainable businesses and generating economic value. >>>> >>>> We have gone through two evolutions and heading towards another. We >>>> started as space, moved to co-working, and are now heading towards creating >>>> the workspace of a new era. >>>> >>>> THECUBE has been mindful to create a bridge between mind space and >>>> physical space. The physical space is neurochemically and physiological >>>> primed to generate productivity, a welcoming feeling and collaboration >>>> between members. www.thecubelondon.com >>>> >>>> *For further media information about WECREATE NYC or THECUBE please >>>> contact:* >>>> >>>> WECREATE NYC >>>> >>>> hello(a)wecreatenyc.com >>>> >>>> >>>> Araceli Camargo >>>> Founder >>>> >>>> THECUBE London l www.thecubelondon.com >>>> WECREATE New York City l www.wecreatenyc.com >>>> Idea Engineering Agency l www.ideaengineeringagency.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Araceli Camargo >>>> Founder >>>> >>>> THECUBE London l www.thecubelondon.com >>>> WECREATE New York City l www.wecreatenyc.com >>>> Idea Engineering Agency l www.ideaengineeringagency.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Araceli Camargo >>>> Founder >>>> >>>> THECUBE London l www.thecubelondon.com >>>> WECREATE New York City l www.wecreatenyc.com >>>> Idea Engineering Agency l www.ideaengineeringagency.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Araceli Camargo >>>> Founder >>>> >>>> THECUBE London l www.thecubelondon.com >>>> WECREATE New York City l www.wecreatenyc.com >>>> Idea Engineering Agency l www.ideaengineeringagency.com >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>> "P2P-Urbanism World Atlas" group. >>> to register to the group >>> http://cityleft.blogspot.com/ >>> To post to this group, send email to >>> p2p-urbanism-world-atlas(a)googlegroups.com >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/p2p-urbanism-world-atlas?hl=en >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Michael Mehaffy >> Visiting Faculty, ASU >> 1019 E. Lemon Street #204 >> Tempe, AZ 85281 >> >> Permanent Address: >> 333 S. State Street, Suite V-440 >> Lake Oswego, OR 97034 >> www.tectics.com >> >> > > > -- > Araceli Camargo > Founder > > THECUBE London l www.thecubelondon.com > WECREATE New York City l www.wecreatenyc.com > Idea Engineering Agency l www.ideaengineeringagency.com > > -- Michael Mehaffy Visiting Faculty, ASU 1019 E. Lemon Street #204 Tempe, AZ 85281 Permanent Address: 333 S. State Street, Suite V-440 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.tectics.com -- Michael Mehaffy Visiting Faculty, ASU 1019 E. Lemon Street #204 Tempe, AZ 85281 Permanent Address: 333 S. State Street, Suite V-440 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.tectics.com

1 0

Fwd: [fcf_discussion] Net Neutrality: The European Commission Gives Up on Users and Innovators
by Michel Bauwens 20 Apr '11

20 Apr '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: La Quadrature du Net <jz(a)laquadrature.net> Date: Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 7:44 PM Subject: [fcf_discussion] Net Neutrality: The European Commission Gives Up on Users and Innovators To: fcforum_discussion(a)list.fcforum.net La Quadrature du Net - For immediate release Permanent link: http://www.laquadrature.net/en/net-neutrality-the-european-commission-gives… Net Neutrality: The European Commission Gives Up on Users and Innovators *** Paris, April 19th, 2011 – The European Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, Neelie Kroes, has submitted her long-due report on Net neutrality to the Parliament. This extremely disappointing document rules out any immediate measures against telecoms operators who continually restrict EU citizens' access to the Internet. Hiding behind false free-market arguments, Mrs Kroes gives way to anti-competitive practices harmful to citizens' freedom of communication and to innovation in the digital environment. *** The long-awaited report [1] published today fails to offer a convincing policy to protect a free, open and therefore neutral Internet. Under heavy pressure, Kroes carefully avoids taking any action to regulate the way Internet access providers discriminate their users' Internet traffic. The report actually recycles many statements from the telecoms lobby in order to present them as consensual truths [2]. Last week, a cross-party mission from the French Parliament issued a courageous report denouncing the anti-competitive and dangerous behaviour of operators. The document relied on a sound definition of Net neutrality to propose pro-active regulation [3]. Neelie Kroes' report does the opposite by turning this founding principle into a mere competition issue, stating that there is no problem and that any bad behaviour will be solved by the market anyway. "This very disappointing report contrasts with Commissioner Neelie Kroes' multiple statements regarding the importance of preserving Net neutrality in order to protect EU citizens' fundamental freedoms. Quite shockingly, the Commission thinks that Net neutrality is compatible with traffic differentiation on the public Internet. This clearly favors telecoms operators who want to boost their profit margins by discriminating users' communications," declares Félix Tréguer, in charge of policy and legal affairs at La Quadrature du Net. According to Neelie Kroes' report, “bad press” for operators and users “voting with their feet” by switching operators can solve any infringement of Net neutrality. But this simplistic spin does not stand the test of reality. In practice, millions of users can only chose one operator to connect to the Internet, either because of geographical or commercial constraints. “Mrs Kroes hides behind false free-market arguments to do nothing at all, pretending that competition and consumer law can successfully address the issue. In most Member States, mobile phone operators agree on engaging in the very same discriminations in their so-called 'mobile Internet' offers. These operators simply do not offer access to the universal platform of communications we call 'the Internet'. By turning a blind eye on these practices, the Commission covers anti-competitive behaviours that hinder innovation and violate users' freedom of communication,” concludes Jérémie Zimmermann, spokesperson for the citizen organization. For more information, see La Quadrature's response to the Net neutrality consultation [4]. * Références * 1. During the revision of the “Telecoms Package” directives, EU institutions purposefully avoided addressing the severe breaches to Net neutrality that telecoms operators already engage in for their commercial interests. At the end of the legislative procedure, in late 2009, the EU Commission nevertheless promised to the European Parliament a report on the issue by the end of 2010. 2. For instance it justifies blocking of peer-to-peer traffic as an “entirely legitimate” practice to handle congestion, totally ignoring the fact that this very peer-to-peer architecture has been a key enabler for the Internet's immense growth and variety of applications. If Neelie Kroes' policy had been implemented in the 1980s, the Internet simply wouldn't exist. 3. The French parliamentary report includes a call for the legislative protection of Net neutrality, which is defined as "the ability of Internet users to send and receive any application of their choice, to connect any device and use the programs of their choice, as long as they do not harm the network, with a quality of service that is transparent, sufficient and non-discriminatory (...)". Unlike the Commission, French MEPs make a strict interpretation of the non-discrimination criteria, as the report explains that all traffic should be treated equally, thereby rejecting so-called traffic differentiation (which allows for different treatments according to the type of traffic). See p. 71. 4. http://www.laquadrature.net/en/la-quadrature-answers-the-eu-questionnaire-o… ** About la Quadrature du Net ** La Quadrature du Net is an advocacy group that promotes the rights and freedoms of citizens on the Internet. More specifically, it advocates for the adaptation of French and European legislations to respect the founding principles of the Internet, most notably the free circulation of knowledge. In addition to its advocacy work, the group also aims to foster a better understanding of legislative processes among citizens. Through specific and pertinent information and tools, La Quadrature du Net hopes to encourage citizens' participation in the public debate on rights and freedoms in the digital age. La Quadrature du Net is supported by French, European and international NGOs including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Open Society Institute and Privacy International. List of supporting organisations : http://www.laquadrature.net/en/they-support-squaring-net-la-quadrature-du-n… ** Press contact and press room ** Jérémie Zimmermann, jz(a)laquadrature.net, +33 (0)615 940 675 http://www.laquadrature.net/en/press-room ----- +info http://list.fcforum.net/wws/info/fcforum_discussion ---- -- 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: Notes from a small, successful country... Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism
by Michel Bauwens 20 Apr '11

20 Apr '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:35 AM Subject: Fwd: [gang8] Re: Notes from a small, successful country... Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism To: econowmix(a)googlegroups.com http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in-norway-start-ups-say-ja-to-socialis… ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Arno Mong Daastoel <amd(a)daastol.com> Date: Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 9:12 PM Subject: [gang8] Re: Notes from a small, successful country... Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism To: Kevin Tighe <tighea2z(a)gmail.com> Cc: Frederick William Engdahl <engdahl(a)t-online.de>, "Robert Locke (E-mail)" <blocke(a)hawaii.edu>, "gang8(a)yahoogroups.com" <gang8(a)yahoogroups.com>, Ursula Backhaus <ursula_backhaus(a)yahoo.de> Dear Kevin, Sounds great doesn't it. Well, people are just as fed up about politicians here as anywhere else and we have the worst infrastructure in all of Europe including Albania, statistics tell us. So there are many things the article did not mention. ;-) We are very fond of being self-critical here, but I think this article is correct and corresponds to more nuanced and researched views over here (- also concerning poverty, relative to quite similar countries) >With a strong social safety net,* the downside to starting a company and failing is small. *As a result, entrepreneurship isn’t a lottery, so much as a lifestyle choice And there is more to this: Whereas employees of the former USSR and the present USA are afraid to take responsibility for fear of being sacked etc (I know from talking with workers and researchers), a worker in Norway normally has a strong union and employment law behind him, as well as social security, a non-hierarchical organisation structure etc. *This enables the rank and file worker to use his independent imagination and take responsibility *without fear of being sacked. Economically this is very effective. The traditional high level of trust in Scandinavia is also effective. There is more. In economic slopes, the government pays part of the salary for the company in order to make the company able to keep its source of competence (labour) intact - as in Germany and other parts of Northwest Europe. But, there are many things the article did not mention. ;-) Arno On 24.03.2011 20:25, Kevin Tighe wrote: Contrast this to the American model.It seems to me to be a glaring weakness in American thinking amongst 'movers and shakers' that an approach something like this would never even be considered.. it would be branded as 'communist' and immediately buried. Wonder why? Norway, entrepreneurial paradise *JAN 20, 2011 10:25 EST* *ENTREPRENEURSHIP*<http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/tag/entrepreneurship> | *SMALL BUSINESS*<http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/tag/small-business> Max Chafkin<http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in-norway-start-ups-say-ja-to-socialis…> has a fantastic story in Inc magazine about how to structure an economy so as to encourage entrepreneurship, full employment, and general happiness and contentment, all while drastically reducing inequality. It’s easy, in fact: all you need to do is become Norway. There’s loads of great stuff in this piece, and I’d encourage you to read the whole thing. But a few things stand out. Chafkin starts with the tale of *Wiggo Dalmo, an industrial mechanic* with a high-school education who chafed under his bosses, *set up his own shop, and is now running a $44 million company with 150 employees*. That’s the kind of story which should be common in the US but is in fact rare. But ask yourself: in the US, how much would such a person be paying in taxes? *Dalmo paid $102,970 in personal taxes on his income and wealth last year*, *which is probablylowe**r*, not higher, than the CEO of a $44 million company would pay in *taxes in the US.* *The reason is that there’s much less income inequality in Norway*. *With a strong social safety net, the downside to starting a company and failing is small.* As a result, *entrepreneurship isn’t a lottery, so much as a lifestyle choice*. If you succeed, you’ll get to run a large and successful corporation. But you probably won’t pay yourself a monster income. Why not? Well, for one thing, *you won’t need to pay yourself a monster income*, since things like *healthcare and college education* — even through grad school, even outside the country — are *covered by the state*. Another part of the reason is that income, in Norway, is a matter of public record. And then there’s the fact that *money which would otherwise be going to the top of the pyramid is instead going to the bottom*, where it does much more good: In a country with low unemployment and generous unemployment benefits, *a worker’s threat to quit is more credible than it is in the United States, giving workers more leverage* over employers. And though Norway makes it *easy to lay off workers in cases of economic hardship*, firing an employee for cause typically takes months, and employers generally end up paying at least three months’ severance. “*You have to be a much more democratic manager*,” says Bjørn Holte, founder and CEO of bMenu, an Oslo-based start-up that makes mobile versions of websites. Holte pays himself $125,000 a year. His lowest-paid employee makes more than $60,000. “You *can’t just treat them like machines*,” he says. “*If you do, they’ll be gone*.” Incentives matter, of course. But *not all incentives are purely financial*. And there are serious problems with the US system where the incentives seem to be structured so that a large number of people are competing to become one of a very small number of monster success stories — multi-millionaire startup founders, or sports stars, or CEOs. Most of us, it turns out, have problems with the idea of playing that kind of lottery. As Chafkin reports: I also became convinced of this truth, which I* have observed in the smartest American and the smartest Norwegian entrepreneurs: It’s not about the mone*y. Entrepreneurs are not hedge fund managers, and they rarely operate like coldly rational economic entities. This theme runs through books like Bo Burlingham’s *Small Giants*, about *company owners who choose not to maximize profits and instead seek to make their companies great*; and it can be found in the countless stories, many of them told in this magazine, of founders who leave money on the table in favor of things they judge to be more important. *There’s a lot of talk, in the US, about how small businesses are the engine of employment growth* — something we clearly desperately need. And *it looks like Norway has cracked this nut*: it leads the world in the creation of small businesses, and it has just *3.5% unemployment*, not to mention essentially *zero poverty*. Raising taxes on small businesses in and of itself won’t help the rate of small-business creation — but it’s actually unlikely to hurt it that much, either. (And interestingly, *taxes paid by an employer in New York are actually **higher<http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/comparing-labor-costs-in-norway-and-ne…> ** than those paid in Norway*.) What *would* help would be a much stronger social safety net, so that someone who starts a company doesn’t need to fear a life of poverty in the event that she fails. *Encouraging small businesses necessarily means encouraging failure* — but the cost of failure is very high, in the US. Instead, we spend far too much time worrying about tax rates on the successful. *There is precious little evidence to suggest that our low taxes have done much for entrepreneurs*—or even for the economy as a whole. “*It’s actually quite hard to say how tax policy affects the economy*,” says Joel Slemrod, a University of Michigan professor who served on the Council of Economic Advisers under Ronald Reagan. Slemrod says there is no statistical evidence to prove that low taxes result in economic prosperity. *Some of the most prosperous countries*—for instance, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, and, yes, Norway—*also have some of the highest taxes*. Norway, which in 2009 had the world’s highest per-capita income, avoided the brunt of the financial crisis: From 2006 to 2009, its economy grew nearly 3 percent. The American economy grew less than one-tenth of a percent during the same period. Meanwhile, countries with some of the lowest taxes in Europe, like Ireland, Iceland, and Estonia, have suffered profoundly. The first two nearly went bankrupt; Estonia, the darling of antitax groups like the Cato Institute, currently has an unemployment rate of 16 percent. Its economy shrank 14 percent in 2009. *You can’t blame all of Estonia’s problems on its low taxes, of course *— the currency issue (Norway’s kroner is floating, while Estonia just joined the euro) is also huge. *And Norway does have all that oil revenue*, too. *But looking at Estonia’s* housing bubble and bust, one sees an economy where *people are striving to get rich quick, in contrast to Norway’s culture of simply trying to be as happy and successful as possible*. Which turns out to be extremely successful http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in-norway-start-ups-say-ja-to-socialis… In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism We venture to the very heart of the hell that is Scandinavian socialism—and find out that it’s not so bad. Pricey, yes, but a good place to start and run a company. By Max Chafkin <http://www.inc.com/author/max-chafkin> | @chafkin<http://www.twitter.com/chafkin> | Jan 20, 2011 ……. __._,_.___ Reply to sender<[email protected]?subject=Re%3A%20Notes%20from%20a%20small%2C%20successful%20country%2E%2E%2E%20Start-ups%20Say%20Ja%20to%20Socialism>| Reply to group<[email protected]?subject=Re%3A%20Notes%20from%20a%20small%2C%20successful%20country%2E%2E%2E%20Start-ups%20Say%20Ja%20to%20Socialism>| Reply via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxbGMxbnI0BF9TAzk3MzU5N…>| Start a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlODNya2ljBF9TAzk3MzU5N…> Messages in this topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8/message/15772;_ylc=X3oDMTM2c3Q1aG8zBF9T…>( 1) Recent Activity: - New Members<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdm9saW8zBF9TAzk3Mz…> 2 Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8;_ylc=X3oDMTJlOWd2bGExBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BG…> 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=15ovb1jcs/M=493064.14543979.14365478.132984…> ------------------------------ Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.<http://global.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=15oe11chl/M=493064.14543977.14365476.108355…> [image: Yahoo! Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkbzliMjAwBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzEyM…> 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

1 0

Fwd: [Commoning] Economists or Ecommonists?
by Michel Bauwens 20 Apr '11

20 Apr '11

Dear colleagues, With the help of David Bollier and subscribers to the Commoning and P2P-Foundation email lists, we are compiling a directory of http://p2pfoundation.net/Commons-Oriented_Economists Wolfgang Hoechsele suggested your names and institutions, as experts likely to be able to suggest names to add to our directory, Many thanks for considering your assistance, Michel ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Silke Helfrich <Silke.Helfrich(a)gmx.de> Date: Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 4:23 PM Subject: [Commoning] Economists or Ecommonists? To: Commoning <commoning(a)lists.wissensallmende.de> Dear all, I was recently inspired by a proposal from a formally trained "economist", Friederike Habermann. She would certainly love to be called an ecommonist, rather than an economist. Actually she frames the world we are all struggling for as Ecommony. (we'll include the proposal in our next monography, many of you are invited to contribute to ...) So, Friederike Habermann (Phd), Germany is my candidate for the list. Best Silke On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 22:59 +0200, Hervé Le Crosnier wrote: > > Hello all, > > I want to follow on what Wolfgang say about the very > definition of "an economist". It's not that easy, > because what we're talking about when considering the > economic aspects of the commons is mainly "political economy", > which is not considered as a typical "economics". > So some sociologists, some political scientists, some > activists, some ecologists have a lot to say to the > economy of the commons. Mostly when we look at all potential > measures for economy. The national gross product, or the > market share are not suitable measures for the commons. > And more to say within the information and immaterials > commons. Is Yochaï Benkler, mainly considered as a law > professor an economist ? Yes he give us truly significant > insights to the economical side of commons productions, > but he does this with all his knowledge of law... > > When I first encounter the David and Michel list, I > don't know if I can add people as Philippe Aigrain, > not an economist, but surely a political economist, as > far as he worked for the European Commission, even though as > a computer scientist by training... > > As far as people are trying to have new indicators for > economy, and well being, and human development, for > political evaluation, or to assist decision in the political > arena, for it not to follow only markets, or more > precisely "financial exchange markets"... we the commoners > must go right on this open way to evaluate the benefit > of the commons way. So sociologists, political scientists, > philosophers, and activists in their plain intellectual > commitment, can be into such a list. > > May be we have to change the disciplinary distinctions, > and promote focus based lists ? But it is mainly the > real good work the P2P Foundation is doing, isn't it ? > > Yours, > > Hervé Le Crosnier > > Le 19/04/2011 22:43, Wolfgang Hoeschele a écrit : > > Dear Michel, > > On my entry on this list, I think you should point out that I'm not an > > economist (if Elinor Ostrom is not en economist, having received the > > Nobel Prize in economics, I'm most definitely not, since I'm trained as > > a geographer!). Katherine Gibson is also a geographer. > > The E.F. Schumacher Foundation _has been renamed_ as the New Economics > > Institute - i.e., those two are one and the same thing. > > > > The Green Economics Institute in England > > (http://www.greeneconomics.org.uk/) should also be listed, while > > different people within that institute follow different approaches, they > > are very much interested in social and environmental justice. The > > directors of the institute are Miriam Kennet (contact at Miriam Kennet > > <greeneconomicsinstitute(a)yahoo.com>) > > and Volker Heinemann; they could probably suggest further economists > > supportive of the commons. > > > > Another economist who you could add is Julie Matthaei - she's a feminist > > economist, involved in the US Solidarity Economy Network. I don't think > > she's published on the commons per se but she is definitely supportive > > of the approach. A volume on the solidarity economy she co-edited is the > > following: > > > > *Solidarity economy :* > > *building alternatives for people and planet ; papers and reports from > > the U.S. Social Forum 2007 /* > > Jenna *Allard*; Carl *Davidson*; Julie *Matthaei > > *2008 > > *English* Book Book xiv, 427 p. ; 23 cm. > > Chicago : ChangeMaker Publications, ; ISBN: 0615194893 9780615194899 > > *Contents:* pt. 1. New visions and models -- pt. 2. Defining the > > solidarity economy through diverse practices -- pt. 3. Building the > > solidarity economy through social movements -- pt. 4. Building the > > solidarity economy through cooperatives and socially responsible > > business -- pt. 5. Building the solidarity economy through networking > > and community organizing -- pt. 6. Building the solidarity economy > > through public policy -- pt. 7. Building the solidarity economy through > > daily practice -- pt. 8. The birth of the U.S. Solidarity Economy > > Network -- pt. 9. Appendices. > > > > Julie could probably also suggest some more economists to add to the > > list - her email is "Julie A. Matthaei" <jmatthaei(a)wellesley.edu>. > > > > If some more people come to mind I'll let you know! > > Wolfgang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 02:50 AM 4/19/2011, you wrote: > >> Dear friends, > >> > >> with the help of David Bollier, who produced the original list below, > >> I will start to compile a list of ... > >> > >> http://p2pfoundation.net/Commons-Oriented_Economists > >> > >> thanks a lot for sending suggestions my way; eventual help with bio's > >> would also be welcome, > >> > >> who among the Berlin participants should be considered economists and > >> should be added to the list? > >> > >> Michel > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: *David Bollier* <david(a)bollier.org <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> Date: Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:58 PM > >> Subject: Re: Article in Financial Times > >> To: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com > >> <mailto:[email protected]> > > >> > >> > >> > >> Michel, > >> Here's my top-of-mind list of commons-oriented or -friendly economists: > >> > >> Josh Farley, U. of Vermont (ecological economics, community development) > >> Robert Costanza, U. of Oregon (a leading ecological economist; not > >> sure of commons-orientation) > >> James Boyce, UMass Amherst (ecological economics) > >> Nancy Folbre, UMass Amherst (feminist economics/caring economy) > >> Gerald Epstein, UMass Amherst (cooperatives) > >> Katherine Gibson, Australia (community economics; former writing > >> partner with the late Julie Graham, a.k.a., > >> J.-K. Gibson-Graham) > >> Elinor Ostrom, Arizona State & Indiana U. (commons; not an economist, > >> but she might as well be) > >> Wolfgang Hoeschele, Truman State University, Missouri (Solidarity > >> Economy, commons) > >> Sam Bowles, Santa Fe Institute (economics as seen through complexity > >> theory & evolutionary sciences) > >> Yochai Benkler, Harvard Law School (digital commons; not an economist, > >> but he might as well be) > >> Peter Barnes, Pt. Reyes Station, California (former entrepreneur; > >> commons; Sky Trust) * > >> David Korten, author > >> Richard Norgaard, UC Berkeley > >> Wolfgang Sachs, Wuppertal Institute, Germany > >> Herman Daly (?), perhaps too economistic and not commons-oriented > >> enough, based on a brief encounter with him. > >> Association for Georgist Studies (the Henry George crowd) > >> E.F. Schumacher Foundation: hosts annual lecture series that often > >> includes iconoclastic economist-types > >> New Economics Institute: Schumacher spinoff with ties to New > >> Economics Foundation in UK, which aspires > >> to develop alternative economic approaches. A more nominal than > >> real project because it has so little money. > >> > >> Peter Barnes hosted a small retreat of commons-oriented economists in > >> Santa Barbara 5-7 years ago. He would be worth consulting if we ever > >> try to do something in this area. > >> > >> There are probably some other economists or near-economists who > >> attended the ICC. > >> ------- > >> > >> David > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Commoning mailing list > >> Commoning(a)lists.wissensallmende.de > >> http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Commoning mailing list > > Commoning(a)lists.wissensallmende.de > > http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning > _______________________________________________ > Commoning mailing list > Commoning(a)lists.wissensallmende.de > http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning _______________________________________________ Commoning mailing list Commoning(a)lists.wissensallmende.de http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning -- 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

does urban farming make sense?
by Michel Bauwens 19 Apr '11

19 Apr '11

this is from our companion list on urbanism, and seems to me, a too simplistic take on the issue, what kind of arguments can be brought to bear on such a hostile attitude to urban farming? my own intuitive sense is that, though certainly by no means a panacea, regrowing food is part of regreening of the city, sustainability, autonomous production, community formation, and the like, and therefore, overall, a positive development, certain in the context of possible future food shortages, Michel ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jan Wiklund <jan.wiklund(a)srf.nu> Date: Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 2:00 PM Subject: SV: [P2P-URBANISM WA] a debate on country-city (dis)urbanism, moscow 1930 To: "p2p-urbanism-world-atlas(a)googlegroups.com" < p2p-urbanism-world-atlas(a)googlegroups.com> And for my part, I don’t se the point of all this talk about food production in towns. The point of towns is to keep down the distances between people and all the millions of activities you need in a complicated economy. Preferably, people should be able to communicate mostly by foot. Bulky kinds of production should be kept out of towns. Von Thünen’s scheme, constructed before the fossil age, still holds good. People in the middle, gardening just outside, and even more spacy activities even farther away. Keeping spaces in towns to grow vegetables on means longer distances, means more fuel. We can’t afford that, except, of course, in small towns where the distances are small anyhow. Jan

4 3

compiling a list of commons-friendly economists, suggestions welcome
by Michel Bauwens 19 Apr '11

19 Apr '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 2:50 PM Subject: Fwd: Article in Financial Times To: Commoning List <commoning(a)lists.wissensallmende.de> Dear friends, with the help of David Bollier, who produced the original list below, I will start to compile a list of ... http://p2pfoundation.net/Commons-Oriented_Economists thanks a lot for sending suggestions my way; eventual help with bio's would also be welcome, who among the Berlin participants should be considered economists and should be added to the list? Michel ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Bollier <david(a)bollier.org> Date: Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:58 PM Subject: Re: Article in Financial Times To: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> Michel, Here's my top-of-mind list of commons-oriented or -friendly economists: Josh Farley, U. of Vermont (ecological economics, community development) Robert Costanza, U. of Oregon (a leading ecological economist; not sure of commons-orientation) James Boyce, UMass Amherst (ecological economics) Nancy Folbre, UMass Amherst (feminist economics/caring economy) Gerald Epstein, UMass Amherst (cooperatives) Katherine Gibson, Australia (community economics; former writing partner with the late Julie Graham, a.k.a., J.-K. Gibson-Graham) Elinor Ostrom, Arizona State & Indiana U. (commons; not an economist, but she might as well be) Wolfgang Hoeschele, Truman State University, Missouri (Solidarity Economy, commons) Sam Bowles, Santa Fe Institute (economics as seen through complexity theory & evolutionary sciences) Yochai Benkler, Harvard Law School (digital commons; not an economist, but he might as well be) Peter Barnes, Pt. Reyes Station, California (former entrepreneur; commons; Sky Trust) * David Korten, author Richard Norgaard, UC Berkeley Wolfgang Sachs, Wuppertal Institute, Germany Herman Daly (?), perhaps too economistic and not commons-oriented enough, based on a brief encounter with him. Association for Georgist Studies (the Henry George crowd) E.F. Schumacher Foundation: hosts annual lecture series that often includes iconoclastic economist-types New Economics Institute: Schumacher spinoff with ties to New Economics Foundation in UK, which aspires to develop alternative economic approaches. A more nominal than real project because it has so little money. Peter Barnes hosted a small retreat of commons-oriented economists in Santa Barbara 5-7 years ago. He would be worth consulting if we ever try to do something in this area. There are probably some other economists or near-economists who attended the ICC. ------- David -- 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

2 2

Fwd: [Commoning] ICAPE conference
by Michel Bauwens 19 Apr '11

19 Apr '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wolfgang Hoeschele <whoesch(a)truman.edu> Date: Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:53 PM Subject: [Commoning] ICAPE conference To: "mailto:"@truman.edu Dear Commoners: Through the US Solidarity Economy Network (of which I am a member), I was alerted yesterday to a conference that is going to be held in November in Amherst, Massachusetts - the announcement for which is appended below. I plan to be involved in one panel that focuses on ideas of the solidarity economy, but in addition I want to explore whether there's interest in organizing a session which would focus on the commons (and where I would also be part of that). Please let me know if you are interested in taking part in this! Regards, Wolfgang Greetings colleague, We would be pleased if you would consider submitting a proposal for a paper, session of papers, or roundtable for ICAPE's 3rd international research conference, * "Rethinking economics in a time of economic distress."*Founded in 1993, the International Confederation of Associations for Pluralism in Economics (ICAPE)<http://www.icape.org/>is an association of associations committed to promoting healthy diversity in approaches to producing economic knowledge. For the upcoming conference, to be held at U.Mass.-Amherst on Nov. 11-13, 2011, we invite proposals for papers or sessions from any strand of interested scholarship, examining topics of cross-cutting interest for creating a more robust, socially-valuable body of economic knowledge. Potential topics could include (but are not limited to): * Re-thinking macro models via complex-systems: Path dependencies, endogenous cycles, emergent properties * Minskian analyses of financial fragility & implications for financial policy * Is fiscal policy different in the 21st century? Deficits & global bond markets * Stresses and strains in the international financial system: Currencies, governance, emerging powers * Enriching economics through perspectives of race, gender, ethnicity, and class * Ecological sustainability as a central concern in economic analysis * Measuring economic performance differently: Alternatives to GDP * Human-capabilities and development practice * Bringing the state back in to economic development * Social and behavioral approaches to individual economic behavior: Is homo economicus dead? * Grass-roots economic change: Community economies, local currencies, living wages, urban farming * The economics of war and peace * Heterodox economics and social provisioning * Alternative theories of business cycles: Austrian, Post-Keynesian, Marxian, Schumpeterian * Profits, factor shares, and financialized capitalism; varieties of capitalism(s) * Ethics and the economics profession * Economic education after the financial crisis: What needs to change? * Practices of economic research: journals, research evaluation, interdisplinarity, underrepresented groups in the economics profession * Changes in empirical methods: Has the ‘con’ gone out of econometrics? Are experiments the only right way to study individual economic behavior? * Pluralism as a strategy for building a more robust economic knowledge * Innovations in all strands of unconventional economic theory: Evolutionary, ecological, complexity, institutional, feminist, Austrian, Marxian, Post-Keynesian, behavioral/psychological, social, radical political economy, critical realism, general heterodox The deadline for submitting proposals is April 30, 2011. We welcome proposals for individual papers, full sessions, and roundtables. To submit proposals, please go to: https://editorialexpress.com/conference/ICAPE2011, and follow the instructions given there. For individual papers, please include: Your name, your title and affiliation, an abstract of 300 words or less, 3 keywords, and contact information (address, phone, email). For full sessions of papers, panels, and other formats, please include the above for each contribution, as well as a title for the session, chair, discussants, and the name and contact information of the session organizer. *Please alert promising graduate students to this opportunity to present their work, get new ideas, begin to make connections, etc. *Information on plenary speakers, travel logistics, etc. will be posted soon on the ICAPE website: www.icape.org. For further information or questions, please contact one of the co-chairs of the organizing committee: Martha Starr, mstarr(a)american.edu, or Erik Olsen, olsenek(a)umkc.edu. Organizing committee: Martha Starr, Erik Olsen, Ioana Negru, Giuseppe Fontana, Mwangi wa Githinji,Andrew Mearman, Bruce Pietrykowski Virgil Storr Advisory committee: Gerald Epstein, David Colander, John Davis, Edward Fullbrooke, Rob Garnett, Stephanie Seguino _______________________________________________ Commoning mailing list Commoning(a)lists.wissensallmende.de http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning -- 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

mutual credit clearing, TBEx / GETS in Aberdeen
by Michel Bauwens 19 Apr '11

19 Apr '11

Thomas, what do you know and think about this? Michel "Richard Logie and Linda Sim own and operate a B2B credit clearing system called The Business Exchange (TBEx) in Aberdeen, Scotland. They established TBEx in 1995. Together they share a philosophy that has always been based on quality, governance of procedures, and the power of mutual ownership. They applied their knowledge and experience of strict controls and good business practices to run TBEx. These principles have ensured the sustainability of the TBEx Exchange system and the retention of the local client base in Scotland. The TBEx currency is respected, stable and does not suffer from inflation. Richard and Linda became aware of complimentary currency systems and engaged and collaborated with various systems in the U.K., Europe, and the U.S. Their work and experience with such systems led them to see the need for an evolutionary approach to promoting sustainable practices with technology that supports them. That approach is GETS Plus. The Global Exchange Trading Systems (GETS technology for credit clearing) was launched in 2006. It is a multi-functional transaction software platform that supports an online computerized marketplace for non-cash, mutual credit transactions and also has components to facilitate multi-currency forms, including loyalty programs." (http://www.getsplus.com/?q=node/28) -- 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

biophilic citi
by Michel Bauwens 19 Apr '11

19 Apr '11

*This article first appeared as a guest post on Sustainable Cities Collective by Amanda Rosenberg, 2010 ASLA advocacy and communications intern. * *Image credit: Timothy Beatley / Island Press* * Taking Nature to the City * In "Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=hdosiabab&et=1105071823172&s=12359&e=001Q03re…>," Timothy Beatley<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=hdosiabab&et=1105071823172&s=12359&e=001Q03re…>, Teresa Heinz Professor of Sustainable Communities at the University of Virginia, argues that planners and landscape architects must design cities so people feel intimately connected with nature. Beatley hopes his book will foster a dialogue about biophilic cities by first defining what these are, offering a set of indicators for measuring biophilic interactions, then imagining how these look at various scales, and finally outlining what institutions and organizations can do to build communities more in tune with nature. Beatley describes how biophilia<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=hdosiabab&et=1105071823172&s=12359&e=001Q03re…>, a term coined by famed sociobiologist and conservationist E. O. Wilson<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=hdosiabab&et=1105071823172&s=12359&e=001Q03re…>, can inform how we plan, design, and manage our cities. Beatley defines a biophilic city as one that puts nature first. "It recognizes the essential need for daily human contact with nature as well as the many environmental and economic values provided by nature and natural systems." He adds that these cities are places where "residents spend time enjoying the biological magic and wonder around them. In biophilic cities, residents care about nature and work on its behalf locally and globally." Throughout, there's a strong case for the psychological benefits of urban nature. E. O. Wilson writes in the foreword: "The evidence is compelling that frequent exposure to the natural world improves mental health, it offers a deep sense of inner peace, and, in many ways we have only begun to understand by scientific reason, it improves the quality of life." Beyond improving humans' well-being though, fostering biophilia among residents can also increase cities' resiliency to future changes. Beatley compiles research and case studies that highlight the environmental, economic, and quality-of-life payoffs of nature in the urban setting. He breaks down several indicators of a biophilic city while acknowledging that urban design and planning is concerned with various scales: regional, community, neighborhood, street, block, and building. "The best biophilic cities are places where these different scales overlap and reinforce biophilic behaviors and lifestyles. Ideally, in a biophilic city these scales work together to deliver a nested nature that is more than the sum of its parts." He explores a number of indicators for determining how well a city creates biophilic connections: *Conditions and Infrastructure* Beatley covers the growing body of biophilic architecture (see earlier post<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=hdosiabab&et=1105071823172&s=12359&e=001Q03re…>) and then inspires to translate them to the broad scale. He also argues for improved accessibility to green spaces. At the broad scale, he asks policymakers to consider how well they facilitate access to nature: - What percentage of the population is within 100 meters of a park or greenspace? - Per capita, how many miles of walking trails exist in the city's borders? *Activities* The residents and institutions of a biophilic city celebrate the unique biodiversity of their place and actively enjoy and participate in the nature around them. Beatley writes that cities can encourage us to connect with nature through programs and offering volunteer opportunities. Some questions for the cities trying to measure the biophilic connections created through activities: - What is the percentage of time residents spend outside, understanding that climate must be accounted for? - What percentage of the population is active in nature or outdoor clubs or organizations? How many of such organizations exist in the city? *Attitudes and Knowledge* The metabolism of a sustainable city relies on residents both knowing and caring about its unique nature, natural history, and restoration opportunities. Beatley points to Tadao Ando's "Sea Forest" plan<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=hdosiabab&et=1105071823172&s=12359&e=001Q03re…>for an 88-hectare parcel in the Tokyo Bay where trees will be planted on landfill, educating all who visit about the benefits of nature. In this area, there are some questions to evaluate how actively residents participate in the natural city: - What percentage of the population can recognize common species of native flora and fauna? - To what extent are residents curious about the natural work around them? *Institutions and Government* To facilitate the growth of biophilic connections, many players must become involved. Most important: there should be education programs to foster connectedness to nature- locally, regionally, and globally. Institutions that could have particularly strong roles include botanical gardens, municipal zoos, natural history museums, and conservation groups. Beatley writes about Lewis Ginter Botanical Garden<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=hdosiabab&et=1105071823172&s=12359&e=001Q03re…>of Richmond, Virginia, which grows food for its community. It has five "learning farms" for urban youth to work at and earn an income. To determine whether governments and instutions are doing enough, questions are directed at how well cities are protecting and building their biodiversity and investing in education: - Has the government adopted a local biodiversity action plan or strategy? - Has priority been given to environmental education? - Has the government adopted green building and planning codes, grant programs, density bonuses, green space initiatives, dark-sky lighting standards, etc? Overall, the city should be a place that is deeply connected to nature; it breaks the average urban resident's feeling of alienation from nature. Planners and landscape architects need to mediate and facilitate this process, Beatley argues, so that we envision our cities as a living environment. With many case studies and best practices, the book offers exemplary ideas for professionals to consider as they re-naturalize the urban world. Read the book<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=hdosiabab&et=1105071823172&s=12359&e=001Q03re…> and learn more about biophilic landscape design<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=hdosiabab&et=1105071823172&s=12359&e=001Q03re…> . *This article first appeared as a guest post on Sustainable Cities Collective by Amanda Rosenberg, 2010 ASLA advocacy and communications intern. * *Image credit: Timothy Beatley / Island Press* -- 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