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

open enterprise and bettermeans
by Michel Bauwens 04 Sep '11

04 Sep '11

has anyone seen this, seems quite thought-true: http://bettermeans.org/front/learn-more/open-enterprise-manifesto/ comments are welcome? 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 3

Eviction of #acampadabcn
by Chris Pinchen 01 Jun '11

01 Jun '11

Right now police are violenty evicting the camp in Plaça Catalunya using the excuse that they need to clean the square for a football celebration tomorrow. People arriving are occupying the surrounding streets and are being clubbed by riot police who do not have id badges visible. the campers are calling for more camps this evening Chris Pinchen http://cataspanglish.com http://twitter.com/cataspanglish

7 18

Re: [P2P-F] OHANDA
by Christian Siefkes 01 Jun '11

01 Jun '11

Hi Michel, Phoebe, all, Michel Bauwens wrote: > hi phoebe, > > I'm not aware of the latest status, so I'm forwarding to both p2p-f and > open-manufacturing, where some people may be more aware of the latest > developments concerning OHANDA, Ohanda is alive and kicking. It's not yet very big or publicised, but there are already more than 30 registered products: http://www.ohanda.org/index.php/Product_ID . Everybody who wants to register their own open hardware with Ohanda can do so: http://www.ohanda.org/index.php/Registration . Best regards Christian > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Phoebe Moore <pvm.doc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> http://www.ohanda.org/ >> http://www.ohanda.org/index.php/Main_Page >>> OHANDA is an initiative to foster sustainable sharing of open hardware and >> design. It was first drafted at the GOSH!-Grounding Open Source Hardware >> summit at the Banff Centre in July 2009 and one of the first goals of the >> project is to build a service for sharing open hardware designs which >> includes a certification model and a registration. OHANDA is in process. The >> process is open. >> >> Alison Powell of LSE has in particular written about this initiative. I was >> wondering what has happened to this initiative and wondered if anyone else >> on the P2P list knew. Should I email the list directly? -- |------- Dr. Christian Siefkes ------- christian(a)siefkes.net ------- | Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: http://www.keimform.de/ | Peer Production Everywhere: http://peerconomy.org/wiki/ |---------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 -- It's just a human thing. Rather like why Figaro sings, why Mozart wrote the music for him to sing to, and why we all make up new words: Because we can. Homo ludens, meet Homo faber. The social condition of global interconnection that we call the Internet makes it possible for all of us to be creative in new and previously undreamed-of ways. Unless we allow "ownership" to interfere. -- Eben Moglen, Anarchism Triumphant

2 3

How the 'ecosystem' myth has been used for sinister means
by Kevin Flanagan 01 Jun '11

01 Jun '11

How the 'ecosystem' myth has been used for sinister means - Adam Curtis - Guardian When, in the 1920s, a botanist and a field marshal dreamed up rival theories of nature and society, no one could have guessed their ideas would influence the worldview of 70s hippies and 21st-century protest movements. But their faith in self-regulating systems has a sinister history http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/adam-curtis-ecosystems-ta… Episode 1 of his current documentary is up on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX5jImWRREc

4 9

"Viscous democracy": a voting system for social networks based on liquid democracy
by ChaTo (Carlos Alberto Alejandro CASTILLO Ocaranza) 01 Jun '11

01 Jun '11

Hi, (I don't know if you'll find this useful or just blatant self-advertising -- it is probably a bit of both :-) It is a very recent paper arguing for a variant of /liquid democracy/, a kind of delegative democracy introducing a dampening factor that reduces the weight of votes that travel through long delegation chains. We argue that it might be a good decision-making system for online social networks. *Viscous Democracy for Social Networks - CACM Virtual Extension - June 2011* http://chato.cl/blog/en/2011/05/viscous_democracy_for_social_networks.html The link above includes a summary as well as links to the (paywall'd) article in CACM, and the authors' copy (free as in beer). Cheers, -- *ChaTo (Carlos Castillo) <http://www.chato.cl/>* /Let's connect! · LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/chato> · Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/chato/> · Twitter <http://twitter.com/chatox>/

2 1

P2P Scenarios for Future Transitions
by Michel Bauwens 31 May '11

31 May '11

This was written as a response to an Invitation to respond to “Global MegaCrisis<http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/profiles/blogs/global-megacrisis-four>: Four Scenarios on the Future of Progress”, for a Special Issue, Journal of Futures Studies, Dec 2011 Michel Bauwens: “The world today is confronting not one crisis, but possibly several at the same time. Each crisis has different temporal aspects, but all are involved in different subphases of development. The most evident crisis is the crisis of one form of the capitalist system, which I would like to correlate with the Kondratieff cycles. As outlined in Carlota Perez’ book, TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTIONS AND FINANCIAL CAPITAL, Kondratieff cycles have a positive and productive high-growth phase, and a financialized, predatory, non-productive phase of decline and slow growth, with the totality of these two subphases ending with a “Sudden Systemic Shock”. Examples of such crisis were 1873, 1929, and 2008. What we witnessed was the end of one such Kondratieff cycle, which means that the old synergy of productive elements cannot possibly work in the next phase. Typically, Sudden System Shocks are followed by on average 15 years of dislocation, delveraging, social crisis and chaos, until they are superseded with a new constellation of productive elements, forming a new logic of accumulation. Such a scenario would mean that we have entered such a period of chaos, but that we may get out of it after a certain period of pain. The second crisis is a crisis of capitalism itself, and this crisis has many different aspects. One aspects is a growing energy crisis, i.e. Peak Oil which was reached in 2006, with competing opinions of whether renewable energies are able to compensate for declining fossil fuels in time to relaunch a new form of productive capitalism. It has been questioned whether industrial capitalism can cope with ever increasing prices of energy, and whether it can reformulate itself around some form of green capitalism. The second aspect of the crisis of capitalism is the emergence of a new hyperproductive system of value production, i.e. peer production. As Marx posited, a system of production will likely be replaced, if it has exhausted its possibilities and a more productive alternative is on the horizon. These two conditions are now fullfilled, albeit in seed form. This brings us to the issue of temporality. Both the energy crisis and the emergence of an alternative, are only in a emergent stage. The positive hypothesis then becomes: if we assume that capitalism finds both an answer to the energy crisis (green capitalism), and some form of adaptation to the new productive system (not unlikely, as both the Roman system and the feudal system susccessfully composed with proto-elements of their successor systems for at least two centuries). Then we may see emerge, after the period of chaos described above, some Kondratieff wave in a renewed form of capitalism, which would have green and p2p elements as part of the new mix. However, there is a third aspect of the crisis which may derail the above possibility in the mid-term (say maximum three decades). Indeed, if we take a pessimistic view of the energy crisis (no answer to Peak Oil as renewables cannot replace lost fossil fuels), coupled with the emerging severity of the biospheric crisis, and with the inability of the current financial predatory class to solve any of the issues at hand; then, in that case, a fundamental and successful re-orientation of the capitalist system would be impossible. In this case, the current period of inter-Kondratieff chaos, eventually followed by a rather short capitalist green-p2p accomodation; would be followed by a severe crisis of civilization, i.e. of its current industrial and capitalist form, and a fundamental reorientation to a new civilization and political economy. Here we have to outline two possible subscenarios: 1)the high road scenario, the development of a new globalism under peer production, preserving the best elements of industrial-capitalist civilization, and finding sustainable ways to maintain relatively high living standards; 2)a low road scenario, in which the dislocation is of such depth, and of such duration, that the p2p phase transition can only occur in a context of intensive relocalization and breakdown of globality; though substantial aspects of a global cultural commons of cooperation may subsist, if we are able to save the essential aspects of the inter-networks. As a historical analogy, think the end of the Roman empire and the long time needed for the new feudal system to reach some stable point of take-off. So here is the timeline that we propose: 1) a period of chaos and dislocation following 2008, which may possibly lead to a revival (2020) of social movements, and two a structural reform of capitalism to a green/p2p upswing with capitalism; after two-three decades this (2040-2050) adaptation is superseded by the deepening biospheric and social crises related to Peak Oil and Climate Change, and the stage is prepared for a phase transition, in ‘high road’ or ‘low road’ mode, of a p2p-commons centered civiilzation; or failing that, a breakdown of civilization into nightmarish realities 2) if capitalist adaptation fails, we go straight from the end-of-Kondratieff to the end-of-capitalism and end-of-industrial civilization chaos; but the possibilities to high-road/low-road/dislocation transition remain; However, a failure of capitalism to integrate green/p2p elements would in my view make the transition more painful.” -- 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: Invitation to contribute to Journal of Futures Studies symposium on Global Mega Crisis
by Michel Bauwens 31 May '11

31 May '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: jose ramos <jose(a)actionforesight.net> Date: Tue, May 31, 2011 at 1:09 PM Subject: Invitation to contribute to Journal of Futures Studies symposium on Global Mega Crisis To: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> Hi Michel JFS is running a symposium on "Global Mega Crisis" jose ------------------------------------- "Global Mega Crisis" describes the dramatic challenges that humanity faces at the moment. Michael and Bill have developed a "Survey of Four Scenarios on a Pessimism-Optimism Axis" built around a number of emerging issues and trends. The symposium, through the Journal of Futures Studies, will help develop a stronger shared analysis and understanding of the challenges humanity faces at the moment, by eliciting short essay responses from a variety of people and perspectives. Please see our invitation overview below. I've attached Bill and Michael's article in pdf format. I have also included a pdf version of the invitation for your reference. I hope you will consider joining our debate. Yours Jose ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- FROM: Michael Marien, William Halal, and Jose Ramos RE: Invitation to respond to “Global MegaCrisis: Four Scenarios on the Future of Progress” Special Issue, Journal of Futures Studies, Dec 2011 INTRODUCTION The fundamental question in serious futures-thinking has to do with the idea of human progress. All matters considered, will life be better for humanity as a whole, for countries and organizations, for communities and families, and for individuals in the decades ahead? Until the past decade or so, progress was widely assumed. But in recent years this assumption has become problematic. The Great Recession, still unfolding in some places, has dampened prospects for many. The multiple threats of global climate change and more extreme weather events darken the long-range horizon. World population continues to grow, despite a declining rate of growth, and food, water, and energy issues are emerging. Political polarization and gridlock appears widespread. On the positive side, many new technologies are emerging that can potentially alleviate if not “solve” some if not many of these problems. So, overall, should we be very negative about future prospects, largely negative, largely positive, or very positive? The two authors of the lead essay have engaged in a public debate on this question over the past two years. We both agree that a “Global MegaCrisis” is emerging, if not yet entirely here for all areas of the world. We disagree as to the outlook: Halal believes that new technology will probably make things better; Marien argues that it is possible but not likely, too little too late. After exchanging several long e-mails, we published our first version of this debate in World Future Review (1:5, Oct-Nov 2009). A second and more popularized version appeared in The Futurist (45:3, May-June 2011). A third version appeared in World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues, 2011. This version refines our dispute and adds some new references. Similar to the other versions, it seeks to engage readers in discussion and debate through the device of four scenarios on a single axis of pessimism and optimism. By quantifying the rough probabilities of the four scenarios, one can easily see where one stands in relation to others on this scale. But then one must ask if the arguments for the assigned probabilities are persuasive. And many arguments can and should be made for each scenario. The value of this exercise is not only to put the idea of progress on center stage, where it rightly belongs, but to encourage reflection on the two more complex middle scenarios (the largely negative “Muddling Down” and the largely positive “Muddling Up”), rather than the extreme negative position (of widespread disaster, Armageddon, species extinction, all-out nuclear war, or collapse of capitalism in all forms) or the extreme positive position (often implicit, but made explicit by those advocating the technological Singularity and/or widespread change of consciousness). The Journal of Futures Studies is inviting a number of distinguished futurists and other futures-oriented thinkers, as well as several students, to ponder these scenarios. The only caveats are that each respondent must: 1) Stay within a limit of between 500 and 1,000 words; 2) Quantify (% wise) the likelihood of each of the four scenarios over the next decade and provide some argument in support of the position taken; or provide a short argument why you chose to not quantify, or your argument against the approach taken in this special issue (or possible argument for an alternative); 3) Submit your response by September 10th 2011 to give W. Halal and M. Marien time to formulate a conclusion. Email response to: jose(a)actionforesight.net ; 4) Format your contribution using JFS editorial guidelines: http://www.jfs.tku.edu.tw/invauthors.html . Halal and Marien will attempt to briefly respond to most or all of these comments. And maybe, as events in our age of turmoil, uncertainty, and multiple transformations unfold over the next few years, we might try this exercise again. About the Special Editors Michael Marien edited Future Survey for the World Futures Society for 30 years, preparing some 21,000 abstracts, and is now embarking on establishing the website: GlobalForesightBooks.org, which is broader and more timely than Future Survey, albeit not as deep. GFB.org now has some 2500 mini-abstracts of futures-relevant books published since early 2009, and long "Book of the Month" abstracts, most of which underlie his emerging worldview. Michael Marien describes himself as a “biophilic post-Unitarian nondenominational social scientist who hangs out with futurists.” He has a (1970) Ph.D. in Social Science and National Planning, and is a Fellow of the World Academy of Art and Science. William E. Halal (Ph.D.) is professor emeritus of management, technology, and innovation at George Washington University (GWU), with degrees from Purdue and UC Berkeley. He has published 7 books and hundreds of articles, consults to corporations and governments, and is a frequent speaker, once substituting for Peter Drucker. Halal is also president of TechCast LLC – a virtual think tank tracking the technology revolution. TechCast was cited by the National Academies as one of the best forecasting systems available, and has been featured in the Washington Post, Newsweek, and other publications. Halal also co-founded the GWU Institute for Knowledge & Innovation. Previously, he served as a major in the Air Force, worked as an aerospace engineer on the Apollo Program and as a manager in Silicon Valley. He received the 1977 Mitchell Prize for his article “Beyond the Profit-Motive,” and was cited by the Encyclopedia of the Future as one of the top 100 futurists in the world. ------------- -- 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

web 3.0 lab work on spanish events
by Michel Bauwens 31 May '11

31 May '11

http://web3lab.blogspot.com/2011/05/using-web-30-to-analyse-possible-eu.html ? dear tom, could you look into this and eventually report in the p2p 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

Thrashing the p2p foundation
by Michel Bauwens 31 May '11

31 May '11

Responding to Miles, and by the way, NextNet is in not 'our' list , I'm just a participant, and so are eventual other people who may contribute to our work. The list was created by Venessa for ContactCon, and the section on P2P Infrastructure was conceived as a service to that community. Miles, you write, <Perhaps it's that the p2pfoundation wiki is young, or perhaps it's that I just know too much about the various subjects that are indexed - either way I struggle to find a value add above what I can find through judicious use of Wikipedia and Google.> Yes, indeed, it is not meant for people who know too much about the various subjects, though I would find it surprising that you would also be an expert on say p2p spirituality, or p2p agriculture and food trends ... As for Wikipedia and Google obviating the need for curation, being a very good searcher myself, I am quite doubtful of that. First of all, not so many people know how to search well, and search and the wikipedia are inevitably biased (of course, so is p2p-f), but the issue is time and organization. Each section aims to be fairly comprehensive, but may not always be, and has many gaps; nevertheless, if you combine say a p2p-f wiki section with some of the other portals being referenced on a same topic, you would quickly gain an overview of a field that may be quite time-consuming to obtain. That's all really. Anyway, as imperfect and incomplete as it is, we still get enough feedback from researchers who say it made a difference for them, and that's all we can hope for. <And then, perhaps I find myself disappointed that a "Foundation" that "studies the impact of Peer to Peer technology and thought on society/"/ is really primarily functioning as a "clearinghouse for open/free, participatory/p2p and commons-oriented initiatives" - with seemingly little participation by folks who are truly pioneers and thought leaders in the field (where, for example are Richard Stallman, Linus Torvald, Ian Murdock, or Eric Raymond in any of this?).> People who are already firmly established in a field in which they are experts will generally not be motivated to volunteer to such information gathering exercise, nevertheless, apart from Ian Murdock, whom I don't know yet, ost of these names would be represented by tags or quotes or references in the wiki, but it is true that we do not focus on those people who were active say 15 years ago, but on emerging actors of the last few years. One of the reasons is that we use 'opportunistic updating' as a methodology for the site, i.e. we do not search to write complete entries, but rather add on new things as we come across them, it's rather like putting a puzzle together. To the degree that say Richard Stallman would make new interventions, we would add and reference them, but we would not necessarily go back to the early writings, though if some other volunteer would want to do this, it would get done. I don't think there is such a "Bible" available, but, many good (some very good) books and essays have appeared and are available, and most of them are referenced; we have a list with recommend essays; we have a book section in the wiki (http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Books) we have regular coverage of books including a book of the week section in our blog, etc ... We make top ten list of best books every year, etc ... The field is probably too vast to have just one such book, but again, the specialized sections, say p2p spirituality, will certainly point you to the major books on a given topic. Never perfect or fully comprehensive, but putting you on the way in a decent fashion, I think so. > in Berlin ... at that time, pessimism about open hardware was > pervasive, it had all been tried, and failed (see Graham Seaman's > texts of the period); I guess we have a different sense of history, and of Graham Seaman's writings (which of his writings are you thinking of?) > I don't have a specific reference, but the different of perspective may be explained by different 'timing'. Certainly, in the period in which I researched open hardware the first time, say around 2004, people were despondent and it followed a wave of failures; but things started picking up a gain 2-3 years later and we're now at a high point of emergence and optimism. Undoubtedly, a period of relative failure may create a new wave of despondency, etc ... I only retained a positive assessment of Seaman in the wiki, see http://p2pfoundation.net/Can_peer_production_make_washing_machines%3F <Hey, I was there, in the middle of a lot of it. What I disdain is looking at things through rose colored glasses.> I don't think Isaac or others are necessarily looking at reality through rose-coloured glasses; they are motivated, have a vision however imperfect, and are willing to face obstacles; I don't think they are going to approach it in the same way as the older waves did; it is of course useful for the new generation of hackers to look at the experiences of previous generations, not to be discouraged, but to see more usefully where they have most chance of succeeding; most likely their experience will be a mix of successes and failures; however, the conjuncture is also very different, the 60s were still a period of ascending capitalism, in the high-growth half of Kondratieff; we are now behind a systemic breakdown of a kondratieff wave, with no structural reforms to speak off, and an all-out war against workers and middle classes, i.e. in which the system hardly offers any hope to young people but rather the opposite. It makes a lot more sense to build constructive alternatives now, rather than attempt say to cajole the system into reforms. Recent mobilizations in Spain, Greece and elsewhere show that this generation is inventing its own forms of struggle and is not just content to built dwarfish alternatives, but is also starting to engage in more fundamental pursuits. It's early days, and they must learn, and history can be a bit of a guide, but cannot offer exclusive guidance.

2 1

Fwd: [gang8] The debt overhead: capital accumulation or an autonomous dynamic?
by Michel Bauwens 31 May '11

31 May '11

very interesting argument below by Michael Hudson: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson(a)gmail.com> Date: Mon, May 30, 2011 at 10:51 PM Subject: Fwd: [gang8] The debt overhead: capital accumulation or an autonomous dynamic? To: excerpted from message below : " to get economists and many economic reformers to see that the financial system is decoupled from the production-and-consumption economy. It is autonomous. " " Most Third World debt represents accrued interest – not necessarily unpaid interest, but new bank loans to enable debtors to pay the interest. This is what Hyman Minsky called the Ponzi stage of the financial cycle. " " The ECB demands that governments (“taxpayers”) in Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal take full responsibility for making good on the bad loans and reckless speculation of banks, so that wealthy and institutional investors who placed their credit and fortunes behind such schemes would be saved from having to take any loss. In such cases it is preferable to drive even national economies into bankruptcy. Mass poverty appears merely as an “externality” to financial fortune hunting at the top of the economic pyramid. " ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michael Hudson <michael.hudson(a)earthlink.net> Date: Mon, May 30, 2011 at 4:28 PM Subject: [gang8] The debt overhead: capital accumulation or an autonomous dynamic? To: GANG8 <gang8(a)yahoogroups.com>, Dear Gang, It seems almost impossible for me to convince Marxists and Georgists that the debt burden is NOT an accumulation of capital representing high profits (causing under-consumption) or land rent, but that debts can accrue — becoming creditor “savings” -- without any surplus at all. How to make this clear? Here’s my attempt so far. When the Merchant of Venice Antonio owed Shylock a pound of flesh, he had a debt, but there was no surplus – no substance – out of which to pay. His ship failed to come in. And it even was a zero-interest loan. (Friends did not charge interest in polite aristocratic ages.) There was a debt, and it was owed to Shylock – who made his surplus by lending money to merchants, who made it by trade. (There was little wage labor as yet, and not much mortgage lending.) Other creditors made loans to government – against taxes that were levied on basic commodities, or the land, or charged as user fees for public monopolies (transportation), or achieved in war by looting to pay off the creditors. That is how the first Crusade was organized, after all: The Doge of Venice advanced funds to the Crusaders, in exchange for a quarter of the loot. This was not a surplus. One could argue tautologically that loot had to be produced as a surplus before. But the volume of loot was independent from the volume of debt that came to be erected. If all debt reflected an existing surplus, then somehow it could be paid. But the problem is that many debts can’t be paid – except by eating into the bone, NOT the surplus. The Greeks rioted because the Socialist government was threatening to take away their livelihood to pay the bankers – as Brown’s Labour Government sought to do to Iceland, and as Spain’s Socialist Government was trying to do. Yet it is hard to get economists and many economic reformers to see that the financial system is decoupled from the production-and-consumption economy. It is autonomous. Many Marxists imagine that the financial crisis represents an “accumulation of capital” in excess of investment opportunities because of profit that employers squeeze out of wage labor. This is over-accumulation, or under-consumption – a failure of Say’s Law and the circular flow, as Keynesians and classical economists alike would say. There is over-accumulation of capital in the production sphere,” as one Marxist friend of mine puts it. All finance capital – and its interest revenue – is squeezed ultimately out of wage labor. Marx went to great lengths to speak of M-M' avoiding the basic M-C-M'. Suppose that labor were indeed paid “its entire product.” Then it would have an economic surplus. It might use this to buy the first criterion of status in today’s world: a home in a nice neighborhood with good schooling. It then would buy trophies, cars – on credit, at interest. I hear much the same kind of argument from followers of Henry George. They believe that “all interest comes from land rent.” The economic surplus is attributed to land rent – or as some admit, to other forms of economic rent, most notably monopoly rent, e.g. of the radio broadcasting and communications spectrum, phone systems, patented seeds and technology, etc. Yet what is left out is the unique banking and financial monopoly – that of credit creation. The great majority of debt that is owed does NOT imply a primary surplus produced by the “real” production-and-consumption economy on which most economists focus – and even most Marxists, Georgists and others. Today’s financial system is autonomous from the “real” economy. Marxists say But now, debt is created freely on computer keyboards. And once there is debt, it accrues interest. There have been times in history when creditors have helped economies organize a surplus out of which to pay interest. The papacy in the 13th century enabled Britain to pay Peter’s Pence and other tribute by creating a market for wool in the Low Countries (Belgium and Holland), which wove it into textiles and tapestries to sell to Romans. So the Roman economy paid the Netherlands for handicrafts, and they paid the British farmers who paid the government to pay Rome. That was the 13th-century circular flow. The World Bank and IMF wee supposed to help Latin America, Africa and Asia create viable economies to pay back World Bank loans and those of its global commercial bank clients. But the “development policy” was too shortsighted, too geared to financing foreign dependency on U.S. farm exports, and northern hemisphere industrial products. The EU’s relationship to its indebted member countries has made almost no contribution to the economic surplus at all. Its behavior has been purely predatory on the part of German, Dutch and French bankers, acting as their collection agent. “Bailing out” Greece and Ireland is simply a means of making these bankers whole for loans that have gone bad. The loans have been created largely on computer keyboards – or were pure gambles, in the case of derivatives. A gamble on a horse race, on the direction of interest rates, on the national lottery, or on foreign currency exchange rates does not require a surplus. Horse betters may have their kneecaps broken if they don’t pay, but it would be tautological to call their kneecap a form of surplus (although it was produced by eating food, which was produced on the land – and sold by stores employing wage labor, and so forth). This occurs regardless of a surplus. An unpaid bill becomes a debt. A mortgage that goes unpaid accrues interest, late fees, penalties and related charges – mostly pseudo-charges for foreclosure and other “services” provided by bank subsidiaries in today’s vertically integrated financial world. Most Third World debt represents accrued interest – not necessarily unpaid interest, but new bank loans to enable debtors to pay the interest. This is what Hyman Minsky called the Ponzi stage of the financial cycle. The ECB demands that governments (“taxpayers”) in Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal take full responsibility for making good on the bad loans and reckless speculation of banks, so that wealthy and institutional investors who placed their credit and fortunes behind such schemes would be saved from having to take any loss. In such cases it is preferable to drive even national economies is into bankruptcy. Mass poverty appears merely as an “externality” to financial fortune hunting at the top of the economic pyramid. __._,_.___ Reply to sender<[email protected]?subject=Re%3A%20The%20debt%20overhead%3A%20capital%20accumulation%20or%20an%20autonomous%20dynamic%3F>| Reply to group<[email protected]?subject=Re%3A%20The%20debt%20overhead%3A%20capital%20accumulation%20or%20an%20autonomous%20dynamic%3F>| Reply via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxa2o1OXEyBF9TAzk3MzU5N…>| Start a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcmxudWE1BF9TAzk3MzU5N…> Messages in this topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8/message/15909;_ylc=X3oDMTM2ZXFjYzkxBF9T…>( 1) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8;_ylc=X3oDMTJldWlia2FiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BG…> The gang8 list is devoted to Creditary Economics. To unsubscribe, email: gang8-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com [image: Yahoo! Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcGs4YmFtBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzEyM…> 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