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

Fwd: [opennetcoalition] IPRED: the European Commission Must Listen to the Citizens!
by Michel Bauwens 11 Jul '11

11 Jul '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: La Quadrature du Net <jz(a)laquadrature.net> Date: Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 7:01 PM Subject: [opennetcoalition] IPRED: the European Commission Must Listen to the Citizens! To: opennetcoalition(a)laquadrature.net La Quadrature du Net - For immediate release Permanent link: http://www.laquadrature.net/en/ipred-the-european-commission-must-listen-to… IPRED: the European Commission Must Listen to the Citizens! *** Paris, July 11th, 2011 – The European Commission just published the synthesis of the responses to the consultation on the revision of the anti-sharing “IPRED” directive. Among these are a large number of responses from European citizens worried about the transformation of Internet technical intermediaries into a private copyright police. La Quadrature du Net congratulates all citizens for their watchfulness and their responses. The Commission can no longer ignore the citizens' opposition to its project to reform the IPRED directive. *** The European Commission just published a report on the results of the consultation on the revision of the anti-sharing IPRED directive [1], to which La Quadrature took part. Citizens were the first group of respondents, before the entertainment industry representatives (rights-holders, collecting societies, etc.). Given the large number of responses, the Commission even decided to take into account answers sent more than two month after the deadline (normally set to March, 31th 2011). Naturally, citizens are opposing the Commission’s project to reform IPRED, which intends to fight the online sharing of culture “at the source”, by turning Internet actors into a private police force on the Net. This strategy announced [2] at the end of May by commissioner Michel Barnier [3], follows the repressive policies encouraged by ACTA [4], the conclusions of the G8 [5] or more recently those of the OECD [6]. As reminded by the UN special rapporteur for freedom of expression last month [7], such an evolution of Internet law would be highly detrimental to freedom of expression, privacy and the right to a fair trial. “This important mobilization shows how concerned citizens are about rights and freedoms on the Internet, and their refusal to see Internet actors turned into a copyright police under the guise of “cooperation”. While copyright debates are systematically biased by the entertainment industries' intense lobbying, the importance of this citizen participation should make it clear here that the sharing of culture is an opportunity, not a threat, and that fighting it is bound to fail and harm freedoms. The Commission must take into account the voice of citizens by renouncing its repressive project and initiating a copyright reform that takes into account the public's rights and new uses.” declared Jérémie Zimmermann, spokesperson of the citizen group La Quadrature du Net. La Quadrature thanks and congratulates all the citizen who took part in this consultation and trusts them to follow with diligence the anti-sharing directive's evolution. * Références * 1. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/docs/2011/intellectual_pr… 2. http://www.laquadrature.net/en/eu-commission-sticks-to-flawed-copyright-rep… 3. The commission indicated then that the anti file-sharing IPRED directive would soon be revisited to “fight the infractions at the source, and, in accordance to that goal, stimulate the cooperation of the intermediaries, like ISPs.”. 4. http://www.laquadrature.net/en/ACTA 5. http://www.laquadrature.net/fr/le-g8-francais-centre-sur-le-controle-et-les… 6. http://www.laquadrature.net/en/copyright-interests-force-private-censorship… 7. http://www.laquadrature.net/en/un-report-on-freedom-of-expression-bashes-g8… ** 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 _______________________________________________ Opennetcoalition mailing list Opennetcoalition(a)laquadrature.net http://laquadrature.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opennetcoalition -- 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: [jox] Extended deadline: CfP on ?Expanding the frontiers of hacking?
by Michel Bauwens 11 Jul '11

11 Jul '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alessandro Delfanti <delfanti(a)sissa.it> Date: Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:21 PM Subject: [jox] Extended deadline: CfP on ?Expanding the frontiers of hacking? To: journal(a)oekonux.org Hi everybody, we are extending the deadline of our call for papers. Please help us circulating it. I mam sending it to Easst, 4S, eccrea... PS We got 18 abstract to date... not bad ale Expanding the frontiers of hacking. Bio-punks, open hardware, and hackerspaces Special issue of Critical Studies in Peer Production Edited by: Johan Söderberg and Alessandro Delfanti Extended deadline: July 20 During the past two decades, hacking has chiefly been associated with software development. This is now changing as new walks of life are being explored with a hacker mindset, thus bringing back to memory the origin of hacking in hardware development. Now as then, the hacker is characterised by an active approach to technology, undaunted by hierarchies and established knowledge, and finally a commitment to sharing information freely. In this special issue of Critical Studies in Peer Production, we will investigate how these ideas and practices are spreading. Two cases which have caught much attention in recent years are open hardware development and garage biology. The creation of hacker/maker-spaces in many cities around the world has provided an infrastructure facilitating this development. We are looking for both empirical and theoretical contributions which critically engage with this new phenomenon. Every kind of activity which relates to hacking is potentially of interest. Some theoretical questions which might be discussed in the light of this development include, but are not restricted to, the politics of hacking, the role of lay expertise, how the line between the community and markets is negotiated, how development projects are managed, and the legal implications of these practices. We welcome contributions from all the social sciences, including science & technology studies, design and art-practices, anthropology, legal studies, etc. Interested authors should submit an abstract of 500 words by July 20, 2011. Authors of accepted papers will be notified by July 31. All papers will be subject to peer review before being published. Abstracts should be sent to delfanti(a)sissa.it Critical Studies in Peer Production (CSPP) is a new open access, online journal that focuses on the implications of peer production for social change. http://cspp.oekonux.org ------------------------------**------------------------------**---- SISSA Webmail https://webmail.sissa.it/ Powered by Horde http://www.horde.org/ ______________________________ http://www.oekonux.org/journal -- 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: Humanitarian disaster
by Michel Bauwens 11 Jul '11

11 Jul '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Anthony Judge <anthony.judge(a)gmail.com> Date: Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:39 PM Subject: Humanitarian disaster To: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> Hi Michel Of possible interest, my latest Humanitarian Disaster or Act of God -- Dangerous Implication in Practice? Responding systemically to the probable fate of millions http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/musings/disaster.php Humanitarian disaster? Disastrous analysis Acts of God? Systemic human neglect Focus of neglect in systemic analysis Real face of humanitarian disaster? Responsibility of God? Exacerbating disastrous system instability through enabling population increase Who are the enablers of pain and suffering? Role of the Abrahamic religions Obedience to orders in enabling humanitarian disaster Primary leadership role of the Christian papacy Mapping controversial psychosocial dynamics: "putting God on the map" Designing denial, unbelief and ignorance into systemic concept maps Confidence and consensus: collective strategy in a time of delusion Best Tony -- Anthony Judge <anthony.judge(a)gmail.com> www.laetusinpraesens.org -- 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: Petition - "France: sauvons internet"
by Michel Bauwens 11 Jul '11

11 Jul '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson(a)gmail.com> Date: 2011/7/11 Subject: Petition - "France: sauvons internet" To: econowmix(a)googlegroups.com http://www.avaaz.org/fr/france_sauvons_internet SIGNEZ LA PÉTITION A l'attention du Président Nicolas Sarkozy: Nous vous appelons à retirer immédiatement le projet de décret qui permettrait au gouvernement d'être juge et partie pour définir les contenus en ligne et les services de l'internet auxquels nous pouvons accéder. Ce décret disproportionné menace nos droits et nos libertés démocratiques ainsi que la liberté d'expression garantie par la Constitution française. *Le gouvernement Sarkozy veut censurer internet* par un décret qui pourrait bloquer des sites et pages de recherche que nous utilisons tous les jours. Mais un tollé national peut stopper cet assaut contre la liberté d'expression. Ce nouveau décret permettrait aux ministres de retirer tout contenu internet menaçant selon eux "l'ordre public", sans passer par un juge. C'est pourquoi un Conseil en charge de l'Internet créé par Sarkozy a condamné cette mesure comme étant inconstitutionnelle, et les experts internationaux sont en état d'alerte. *Mais le décret pourrait malgré tout être adopté dans les prochains jours*. Le Président Sarkozy a montré au sommet du G8 qu'il soigne son image de dirigeant moderne et de partisan d'internet. Ainsi, si nous sommes suffisamment nombreux à *exiger qu'il enterre ce projet de censure*, nous pourrons faire pencher la balance et empêcher qu'il ne mette la main sur internet. Lançons un gigantesque appel national demandant à Sarkozy de protéger la liberté d'internet. *Signez dès maintenant la pétition urgente. * Cliquez ici pour signer la pétition!<http://www.avaaz.org/fr/france_sauvons_internet/?rc=fb&pv=54#top> Dans le droit français, les contenus dit "manifestement illicites" comme la pédopornographie peuvent *déjà* être retirés sans contrôle judiciaire.*Mais si nous n'agissons pas, le nouveau décret donnerait à quelques ministres des pouvoirs excessifs de censure arbitraire sur n'importe quel contenu en ligne *. Il obligerait les hébergeurs et les fournisseurs d'accès internet à retirer ou filtrer tout contenu qualifié notamment d'"atteinte à l'ordre public et à la protection des personnes", une définition très large menaçant l'expression libre. L'ONU estime que les mesures de filtrage sont excessives et inefficaces et vient de condamner les lois françaises sur l'internet. Et Reporters Sans Frontières a placé la France dans la liste des "pays sous surveillance" qui recense les violations de la liberté d'expression autour du monde. Enfin le Conseil National du Numérique récemment installé par Sarkozy a indiqué que le blocage de sites *violait la liberté d'expression protégée par la Constitution française* et ignorait l'intérêt du public. Nous savons que le Président Sarkozy souhaite apparaître comme un ami de l'internet. Il a récemment créé le Conseil National du Numérique et organisé le premier Sommet du G8 de l'internet. Mais il ne peut pas gagner sur les deux tableaux. *Ensemble, nous pouvons lui montrer ce que signifie être un réel défenseur de la liberté d'internet et de la libre expression*. Appelons-le à retirer ce décret instaurant la censure d'internet et à protéger nos droits -- signez la pétition et diffusez-la à tous vos amis! Cliquez ici pour signer la pétition!<http://www.avaaz.org/fr/france_sauvons_internet/?rc=fb&pv=54#top> Dans le monde entier, des gouvernements tentent de censurer l'internet, outil vital pour les soulèvements arabes pro-démocratie et permettant d’exposer au grand jour les abus de pouvoir et la corruption dans tous les pays de la planète. Cependant, de Italie à la Syrie et de l'Inde à la Turquie, les membres d’Avaaz se mobilisent pour défendre cet espace crucial de liberté et de communication mondiale. Rejoignons-les et protégeons l'internet en France. -- 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

"overlap.me"
by Dante-Gabryell Monson 10 Jul '11

10 Jul '11

"p2p" ? http://www.overlap.me/ http://www.overlap.me/blog/introducing-overlap-dot-me ps: feel free to send feedback to its designer, Matt. My last small remarks where adapted to the design of the site almost instantaneously.

1 0

legalizing crowdfunding in the U.S.
by Michel Bauwens 10 Jul '11

10 Jul '11

http://p2pfoundation.net/Change_Crowdfunding_Law Dear Sepp, this is quite important, I'm hoping you can present this as well, Michel -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

discovering arnsperger's thought
by Michel Bauwens 10 Jul '11

10 Jul '11

> Bernard Lietaer and Christian Arnsperger on reinventing the financial > system<http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/P2pFoundation/%7E3/1a9Vs-BHfZQ/09> > **** > > Via<http://www.lietaer.com/2011/06/reinventing-the-financial-system-an-audio-in…> > :**** > > *What is the structural cause of the financial crisis and what is its > structural solution?***** > > *1. Watch the video* from monetary transformer *Bernard Lietaer*, from > TedX Berlin:**** > > <http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/P2pFoundation/%7E3/1a9Vs-BHfZQ/09>**** > > *2. Listen to the audio podcast interview* here<http://www.lietaer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/4d43a056-0d5c-c210-dd20-9…> > .**** > > *” Dawna Jones talks to Bernard Lietaer, author of “The Future of Money” > and the forthcoming “New Currencies for a New World”, about the root causes > of financial uncertainty and what practical steps businesses can take to > insure against it.* > > *So just how can small and medium size business reclaim control over > financial instability? At their heart, economic downturns and financial > instability are symptoms of a financial and monetary system that is > unsustainable. Yet nature shows us how to create a structurally stable > monetary system and the same principles can help business survive the > current turmoil.***** > > *In this special half hour interview, we’ll also how local innovations in > currency serve to stabilize cash flow, local and regional economies.”***** > > *But how do we get from “here” to “there”, how can monetary transformation > be implemented in the current world-system?***** > > Here<http://eco-transitions.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-transition-part-4-renewing…>is the thinking of Christian > *Arnsperger*:**** > > *“So here’s the inconvenient truth: The monetary logic of capitalist debt > which rules the day makes any collective transition project towards a > pluri-economy based on a broadened equality-of-opportunity principle > virtually impracticable. As it stands, our monetary system will get in the > way of any “muddling through” process of gradual transition. This has > nothing to do with any sort of conspiracy theory. Commercial private bankers > aren’t any more “anti-transition” or reactionary than any other agent in the > economy. In fact, on an individual and personal level, they may be all in > favor of a transition. But the systemic logic which their activity > reinforces de facto makes a transition difficult. That’s the reason why > re-thinking the financial system is so crucial today for transition > activists.* > > *Now, status-quo realists may counter that States should simply be forced > to extinguish their debt altogether: pay back past public deficits, create > no new ones. Wouldn’t that solve the problem? Not at all. In fact, another > part of the inconvenient truth of this system of ours is that, if there were > no longer any outstanding debts (public or private), there wouldn’t any > longer be a single dollar or euro in circulation in the economy! (This was > one of the main reasons why the Fed encouraged a boost of mortgage debt in > 2007 and why many institutions went soft on supervision, because public and > consumer debt was all but saturated already, meaning that liquidity had to > be created through other debt mechanisms — one of them being household debt > linked to real estate purchases. Many of the loans were sub-prime, but for a > short time they sent credit multipliers rippling through the banking system. > This created new money and the hope was that the whole economy would thus be > jump-started and the bad loans paid back thanks to the rising housing bubble > and a new surge in macroeconomic growth. The Fed’s gamble was lost, as we > now know.) The dollar and the euro are privately created currencies emitted > by the commercial banks, under the “control” of a central bank whose main > roles are (a) to ensure that the banks will keep enough reserves so as to be > able to face potential cash withdrawals and (b) to look out for “too high” > inflation so that debtors (households, firms, and the State) don’t get away > too easily with nominal rises in asset values — since inflation basically > benefits debtors and the owners of real assets and hurts the owners of > financial assets. In such a system, there is a constant pursuit of debt > rollover (i.e., new debts being reissued as outstanding ones are being > extinguished) and, therefore, a constant pressure for growth, if possible in > real rather than nominal terms.***** > > *Although perhaps needlessly polemical, Nobel laureate Maurice Allais’s > quip that the money creation mechanisms embedded in bank debt are akin to > “counterfeit” does capture a crucial aspect of what’s going on. In her > remarkable book The Web of Debt (Third Millennium, 2008), Ellen Hodgson > Brown recounts the pronouncement of one U.S. judge who, on behalf of a house > owner who had been dispossessed by his bank, ruled that the bank had in fact > been guilty of counterfeiting because it had lent and created money (through > a mere scriptural operation) for which no prior wealth existed, not even in > the form of deposits (since banks routinely lend more than the deposits > entrusted to them). Moreover, the principle of interest-bearing debt > generates a strongly competitive, rather than cooperative, economy. Here is > how Bernard Lietaer describes the process:* > > *“…interest is woven into our money fabric, and (…) it stimulates > competition among the users of [the] currency. (…) When the bank creates > money by providing you with your £100,000 mortgage loan, it creates only the > principal when it credits your account. However, it expects you to bring > back £200,000 over the next twenty years or so. If you don’t, you will lose > your house. Your bank does not create the interest; it sends you into the > world to battle against everyone else to bring back the second £100,000. > Because all the other banks do exactly the same thing, the system requires > that some participants go bankrupt in order to provide you with this > £100,000. To put it simply, when you pay back interest on your loan, you are > using up someone else’s principal. (…) In summary, the current monetary > system obliges us to incur debt collectively, and to compete with others in > the community, just to obtain the means to perform exchanges between us.” > (Bernard Lietaer, The Future of Money, pp. 51-52, © Century, 2001)* > > *Basically, we’re living under a system where debt-money, as the only > legally sanctioned means of exchange, is created and circulated by > commercial private agencies (banks) under supervision of frequently > semi-private agencies (central banks, many of which aren’t public > institutions, despite what their names seem to indicate) so as to create an > optimal “business climate” for investors in financial capital and for > providers of capital-driven private and public employment. Money is not > fully anarchic, we do have institutions that “manage” it and that steer the > current monetary system (from national or regional central banks all the way > up to the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International > Settlements), but these institutions are mainly designed to uphold and > maintain industrial-financial capitalist social democracy — precisely the > system which is getting dangerously close to unsustainability because of the > persistent externalities and internalities it generates by its very logic. > If we really want a transition towards a sustainable pluri-economy, with the > help of all the framework conditions discussed in the previous installments, > we need to address the alternatives that exist to this monolithic, > private-monopoly money system.* > > *The basic idea is that means of payment should exist in proportion to > expenses that we deem adequate — not just in order for miscellaneous private > actors to reap maximum profits, but in order to reduce the multiple > instances of crippling environmental and human stress produced by the > economic system. Since the global de-growth compact (or economic Kyoto > protocol) would require developed economies to become much more selective in > the way they trade with each other, local currencies would quite likely > become relevant again. As the spectrum of local economic activities becomes > broader over time, locally earmarked means of payment would gain in stable > and durable purchasing power, making it more and more rational for local > economic agents to hold part of their money balances in local currency. One > way this could occur, as Michael H. Shuman has suggested in his fine book > Going Local (Routledge, 2000) [see his website in the sidebar], is for banks > to have local branches that commit to dealing with local actors and not to > siphon off the money of local depositors towards national or international > investments. There are instances where this has worked, but usually it means > some sort, and probably a substantial dose, of public intervention. Why > would any private commercial banker in his right mind accept to forgo profit > opportunities outside the local community? In other words, most local > currencies are likely to be emitted either by the democratic community > itself (as is the case in most Transition Towns — see Rob Hopkins’s blog in > the sidebar) or by locally anchored non-profit financial institutions, which > may either be private (as part of the Social and Solidarity Economy sector) > or public.* > > *In all cases, however, such local currencies would have the same status > as the local currencies of European countries prior to the euro had with > respect to the dollar as a world currency: They would be complementary local > currencies, coexisting with the euro and the dollar, not replacing them. > This is, in fact, sensible because we saw that selective relocalization and > reasonable de-globalization are not abrupt, revolutionary moves — they have > to be compatible (via the crucial notion of subsidiarity) with a plurality > of trade regimes, with most regions or municipalities developing both a > stronger local economic fabric and lasting commercial links with other > regions located as near to them as possible (or as far from them as > necessary). As fossil fuels become more expensive, as climate change impels > more and more countries to look for new options, and as local economies get > revitalized as a result, increasing volumes of trade may stop being global > and there might be a partial return — for bioregional reasons of > sustainability rather than for opportunistic reasons of nationalism or > dogmatic regionalism — to more restricted trade agreements. Bilateralism and > its opaque power plays should, whenever possible, be avoided, but a “bull’s > eye” logic in trade, where you get what you need as close by as you can get > it rather than scanning the whole planet for the very cheapest bargain (even > if it implies a negative return in terms of net energy), is likely to be a > new reality. Still, none of this would imply a disappearance of world trade. > There should certainly still be a world currency, though more and more > numerous voices are calling for the U.S. dollar to stop assuming that > perilous function. Lietaer’s and Douthwaite’s idea of an “ecology of > currencies” doesn’t imply that there would only be local currencies. There > should be, roughly speaking, as many currencies as there are legitimate > trade areas: There is localized trade within a city, localized trade within > a region, inter-regional trade within a broader but still circumscribed > area, and international trade. In each of these cases, there are difficult > technical issues as to how to actually delimit the optimally-sized trading > area in an operational way. Whatever the case may be, there would be several > complementary currencies, each performing a specific role in irrigating > trade (and hence also production, work, investment, etc.) at the appropriate > bioregional level. Each currency would need its own emission and regulation > institutions, but there would be absolutely no reason why these should all > conform to the current private-monopoly principle whereby commercial banks > create money under the supervision of a (more or less private) bankers’ > bank, the central bank. In fact, as I explained above, there are good > democratic as well as ecological arguments why such a monolithic logic > should not prevail.* > > *Local “economic communes” could, eventually, use the local currency to > collect local taxes, which would give all local economic actors an incentive > for holding at least a minimal amount of that currency, hence for trading > locally with the people who have some of it to spend. (I am indebted to > Bernard Lietaer for this idea, which is linked to the so-called “Chartalist” > school of monetary theory, represented a.o. by L. Randall Wray’s book > Understanding Modern Money, Edward Elgar, 1998.) As a result, a fraction of > the Economic Transition Income could end up being labeled in local currency, > and thus spent on local goods and services, further contributing to a local > revitalization. This would not imply that a citizen would lose his/her right > to a full ETI if he/she moved to another place. The corresponding fraction > of the ETI would simply be relabeled in the new local currency.* > > *But how would local complementary currencies be put into circulation? I > emphasized in the previous post (installment #5) that capital should > increasingly be seen as as a loan from the democratic community to its > social entrepreneurs, who in turn will use it to produce and sell as locally > as possible, to employ local labor whenever feasible, and so on. (To repeat > once more, local citizens would also hold national and/or world currencies, > and would perform trade accordingly at higher levels, too. Local currencies > are to be complementary, not exclusive.) This in itself implies that the > criteria for financing investments would have to be modified substantially, > since as we saw, the current logic almost forces all innovators and > investors to skim world markets in the hope of reaping sufficient wealth > (labeled, if possible, in dollars or in euros) so as to honor their own > interest-repayment obligations. One way to have the democratic community > decide is to replace private by State monopoly. Let me say immediately that > neither I nor Lietaer really believe in this option. But it has an audience > within alternative circles. The idea would be to snatch money creation > completely back out of the hands of the private banking sector — for > instance, by imposing a 100% obligatory reserve rate or by making lending > more than one’s deposits illegal. Money creation would become a State > prerogative again, under tight democratic control (so that no one here is > advocating a discretionary right for government to use the printing press > whenever it feels like it). The quantity of money would be calculated so as > to correspond closely to the needs of the real economy, not the needs of > private banks for profit (nor the central-bank mediated needs of > financial-asset owners for low inflation). Economic activities would be > financed through public credit institutions, or the equivalent of public > banks. There would still be interest payments — so that the growth > imperative wouldn’t be completely eliminated — but they would accrue to the > community rather than to the private banking sector. Rather than being the > late counterpart of bank credits that were lent out while never even having > been deposited, these interests would be sort of a tax that would allow to > publicly finance a “social dividend” or social credit, an equivalent of the > ETI. The State might therefore even be able to correspondingly lessen fiscal > pressure on incomes, to the extent that both the ETI and transitioners’ > infrastructure investments could be financed through the social dividend. > (For a discussion of social credit and basic income, see chapter 14 of > Rowbotham’s Grip of Death.)* > > *If we don’t just want to replace a private monopoly by a public one, we > need instead to think up bottom-up solutions so that money gets created more > or less endogenously when it’s needed for specific types of transactions. > One obvious solution is so-called mutual-credit currency, such as is being > used in Local Exchange and Trading Systems (LETS) or in the Swiss inter-firm > trading system known as the WiR (in German, Wirtschaftsring-Genossenschaft). > There, without any intermediary and with a minimal amount of administrative > coordination, non-interest-bearing credit lines are automatically opened and > extinguished as individuals or firms engage pairwise in transactions. There > are currently researchers and practitioners developing large-scale > mutual-credit networks with elaborate compensation mechanisms so as to be > able to broaden the scope of trade beyond small neighborhood or city > communities (see http://communityforge.net/resources) Lietaer has thought > up, and actually contributed to implement, other complementary currencies in > municipalities or regions desiring to further specific environmental or > social priorities. (See, for instance, his “C3″ or Circuito de Crédito > Comercial scheme experimented in Uruguay, designed to boost employment when > there is a dearth of mainstream currency in times of financial or banking > crisis. Website: http://www.c3uruguay.com.uy/. See also Lietaer’s > contribution to the WAT system in Japan, where a parallel currency is used > to foster environmentally sustainable activities and ecological restoration > by local NGOs. Website: > http://www.lietaer.com/2010/05/the-wat-system-in-japan. See also: > http://web.archive.org/web/20070302172021/http://home.debitel.net/user/RMit….) > Another relatively decentralized and bottom-up way of creating non-banking > currency would be to foster cooperative — private or public — financing > networks within the Social and Solidarity Economy. (In Belgium, there is a > Réseau de Financement Alternatif that studies and implements such solutions. > The New Economics Foundation in the UK — see website in the sidebar — has > also been very active in this area.) The idea here is that not-for-profit > financial institutions would offer a service to the community and could > charge much lower interest rates than the commercial banks who are being > strangled by the disproportionate profitability demands of the investors who > place their funds with capitalist financial institutions.* > > *If you think I haven’t really spelled out a very coherent picture here, > you’re quite right. I haven’t. Research on parallel, complementary > currencies is still in its infancy. After so many decades of private-bank > monopoly on money creation, and after just as many decades of misleading > most citizens into believing that money is created by the State, re-thinking > money creation as a plural, decentralized, citizen-driven and democratically > controlled activity is really difficult. We’re struggling to discover the > right mixture of top-down and bottom-up for each instance of a currency. > Much will depend on the transition-related objectives — better care for the > fragile and elderly, more humane employment opportunities, greener > production, more cooperatives, more “voice,” etc. — that we wish to assign > to our various currencies. Lietaer and Douthwaite are both insisting on the > fact that the more diverse our “ecology of money,” the more resilient will > be the various subsystems of our sustainable pluri-economy. I agree with > them. And this means that monetary reform is most probably — along with the > global de-growth compact discussed in installment #1, with its fair and > differentiated growth guidelines — the most urgent framework condition in > favor of which transition activists should militate, even before we engage > in any actual transition initiative, which under current conditions is > likely to remain almost invisible and to miss its full potential. The first > steps of the transition will be political, to be sure.”***** > > Please note that for Christian Arnsperger<http://eco-transitions.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-transition-part-4-renewing…>, > *monetary change can only take place in a wider framework, in which 6 > concurrent political and policy conditions are met:***** > > ** “De-growth” and an economic Kyoto protocol ** > * Fostering new governance through the creation of a World Transition > Organization > * Fostering new governance through participatory coordination and > communalism > * Introducing an Economic Transition Income > * Deepening economic democracy and encouraging new forms of > entrepreneurship > * Re-thinking money creation and fostering a new “ecology of currencies”** > *** > > *These six conditions seem to me to be components of a desirable and not > unreasonable worldview. Still, to believe they could be introduced next > Monday morning would be madness. Well, okay, it’s probably the case that to > believe that anything at all could be changed next Monday morning (such as > the kids starting to clean up their rooms by themselves) would be madness… > But you know what I mean.* > > *What, given the horizon traced out by these six central framework > conditions, might be things we could start changing soon? What are the > actual next steps we might take, not in order to instantly implement these > six conditions (as if they could be suddenly couched into a new economic and > social constitution), but in order to create changes which, although perhaps > still far removed from the ideal, might put the needle of our compass in the > right position or, at the very least, might help us not to forget that these > conditions are the ones we’re ultimately aiming for? Those are questions > we now need to ask ourselves.”***** > >

1 0

farmageddon
by Michel Bauwens 10 Jul '11

10 Jul '11

hi sepp, could you cover this for us: http://p2pfoundation.net/Farmageddon (eventually adding an embed trailer or online version ...) -- 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

debate on culture as a commons
by Michel Bauwens 10 Jul '11

10 Jul '11

Dear Sepp, we're having an interesting debate with Nina Paley here, see http://blog.ninapaley.com/2011/07/09/culture-is-not-a-commons/comment-page-…, already the second article, would be really great if you could refer to this in 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: [gang8] Fannie Mae didn't cause the crisis
by Michel Bauwens 10 Jul '11

10 Jul '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson(a)gmail.com> Date: Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 6:11 AM Subject: Fwd: [gang8] Fannie Mae didn't cause the crisis To: econowmix(a)googlegroups.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michael Hudson <michael.hudson(a)earthlink.net> Date: Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 3:46 PM Subject: [gang8] Fannie Mae didn't cause the crisis To: GANG8 <gang8(a)yahoogroups.com> ** Dear Geoffrey, Re some thoughts you earlier had from reading the US press, here’s a corrective. Michael *McClatchy Washington Bureau * * *Posted on Sun, Oct. 12, 2008 * Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisi**s David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspape*rs last updated: November 24, 2010 01:49:33 PM WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail. Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems. Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis. Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006. Federal Reserve Board data show that: More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions. Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics. The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday. Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their ability to pay the mortgages. "I don't remember a clarion call that said Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster," said Neil Cavuto of Fox News. Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans. It's a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more. This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families. To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares. But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership. Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble. During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data. In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages. Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market. About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve. Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending mess on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods. Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial institutions to show that they're lending and investing in their communities. Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, "it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — who in turn pressured banks and other lenders — to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity." Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market. What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans. These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans. In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for affordable housing created today's problems. "Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans," she said. "The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households." In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in June 2007, the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich wrote that only one-third of all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to the pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he wrote, "that this new lending is good business." McClatchy Newspapers 2008 __._,_.___ Reply to sender<[email protected]?subject=Re%3A%20Fannie%20Mae%20didn%27t%20cause%20the%20crisis>| Reply to group<[email protected]?subject=Re%3A%20Fannie%20Mae%20didn%27t%20cause%20the%20crisis>| Reply via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxZXJ1aW5nBF9TAzk3MzU5N…>| Start a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJldGsyNzNoBF9TAzk3MzU5N…> Messages in this topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8/message/16028;_ylc=X3oDMTM2ZzludDZtBF9T…>( 1) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYmppbjc0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BG…> The gang8 list is devoted to Creditary Economics. To unsubscribe, email: gang8-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com [image: Yahoo! Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcWo5a25iBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzEyM…> 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